doing so but there are two areas the still collect information under their own definition, and i think one of those is market research and theater is product development. that doesn't take me to a series but i get very nervous when i see that about those two, you know, little snippets being able to swallow up the rule.

>> that's critically important for consumers. you want to have more trust as the general council said in internet commerce. >> i'd agree with, that, and i'l close with this that the statement was made here that it's in the nature of the internet industry, the web

industry, whatever, to compete with the trust of the consumer. and that in so doing, they get the trust of the consumers, and there's no need to consider regulation. that goes against my general theory of corporate america. talking about competition has the most cut throat competition going on that exists, people emerging and swallowing, doing all kinds of things, it doesn't make sense to me that people can compete for something that's not in their economic interest except that they are required to do so by a higher power that understands the protection is not just what is already on the book, and protection is a part of the rule of law so to speak in america. >> well, if i can just respond to that, imagine we maureen and

are are competitors. shements to do the right thing, and i want to montage it any way i can. she's at a competitive disadvantage because -- because i'm making more money while she's trying to protect consumers. >> she's being virtuous. >> she is, and she's a wonderful member of the commission already. >> i would probably try to advertise the fact that i am virtuous to get consumers to come to my company. >> if they are not playing along and making more money, then it's not fair to the other corporations. you understand this, and that's why things like voluntary stake holders and codes of conduct are useful. it's why at the end of the day we hope that the digital advertising alliance and companies behind it represent 90% of all advertising on the internet.

when you get 90%. they are making commitments to t to collect, and having talked to them individually would be very comfortable with limitations on collection. as the kind you and i envision. i think that that would be very meaningful for consumers. >> the trust built up, for another company, to operate-under-par the radar without republicking the same standards, and that's why we need a baseline. >> exactly. >> i thank all three of you very, very much. this is the beginning of a new beginning in this area, and the floor is not an easy place, and the senate is not an easy place to get legislation passed as you

may have noticed, and that doesn't stop us. we have to do our work. it's incredibly important working together in this new age, controlling of the new age, set of businesses that we're dealing with so i thank you and the hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> vice president joe biden told supporters today that the republican presidential candidate mitt romney's experience at bain capital does not make him qualified to be president. he made the remarks speaking on

the economy in new hampshire. he was introdm#' by democratic state senator molly kelly. this is just over 35 minutes. [cheers and applause] >> hello and welcome. [cheers and applause] i'm molly kelly, and i'm the state senator for new hampshire and a proud garage watt of keene state college. [cheers and applause] before i turn the state over to vice president biden, i want to say a word about our local economy here. the region is home to more than 70 high-tech manufacturing companies. when the vice president talks about an economy built to last, you should know that the thousands of manufacturing employees here and across new hampshire are the people building the economy. [applause] over the past 26 months, the

u.s. economy has added 4.2 million new jobs, and i'm going to say that again. over the past 26 months, the u.s. economy has added 4.2 million new jobs. [cheers and applause] the manufacturing industry has expanded for 33 straight month, and since february of 2010, new hampshire added over 600 manufacturing jobs, and new hampshire's average monthly manufacturing exports grew by 20% from 2010 to 2011. [cheers and applause] it is -- it is truly a testament to the obama administration's hard work. [cheers and applause] we have come a long way, but, of course, there's still much more work to do. this is the make or break moment. it is the make or break moment

for the american middle class. we can choose to go back. we can choose to go back to an economy built on outsourcing, loopholes, and risky financial deals. the same one that crippled our economy and punished our middle class, or we can invest in an economy built to last, one that values americans on manufacturing and job training and jobs for tomorrow. we need to keep the promise alive that if you work hard, value responsibility, and if you play by the rules, you can support your family, send your kids to college, and save for retirement. ladies and gentlemen, president obama and vice president joe biden have put us on that path, and that is why it gives me great pleasure to introduce and certainly an honor to introduce the vice president of the united

states, joe biden. [cheers and applause] >> thanks, y'all, very, very much. molly, thank you. [cheers and applause] i'm so glad i'm molly's friend. thank you very much. now, i don't know if you have seats behind you, but if you do, please take your seats. you don't? i see some over here. yes, we will. ladies and gentlemen, -- [chanting] well, i think we can too. folks, it's really --

ladies and gentlemen, it's a pleasure to be with you, and whomever is chanting. i -- folks, i'd like to, especially for those of you standing, not make this too long. what i'd like to do is -- folks, i, i'd like to have a straightforward discussion with you as straight as i can be and make as it plain as i can, and i'd like to get right to the heart of the matter. you all know what we inherited, and how and what governor romney's line of argument is. he says -- he says that since we've gotten in office, things have gotten much worse. he says our policies are the problem. well, as former senator pat and good phren of mine used to say, everyone's entitled to their own

opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. [laughter] folks -- [applause] folks, i'd like to just talk about the facts for a moment if i way. i want to show you, and i think you all got a copy of this graph before you came in. i'd like you to take one look at that. it says job creation between december of 2007 and april of 201. the red lines are the jobs that we lost. the blue lines are when we started adding jobs back dot -- to the economy. in the last six months of the bush administration, we lost 3.5 million jobs. as a matter of fact, on that magnificent day on january 20th, and some of you were there, and i see so many great old friends out here, and, by the way, i -- as you know, i don't want to

hurt your reputation, but i really love keene, i really love being back here. it's such a great city. it's such a great town. [applause] some of you were there on that bitterly cold day on january the 20th when we were sworn in. before i lowered my hand that day after taking the oath, that month we had already lost over 760,000 jobs, that month as by january the 20th. ladies and gentlemen, we lost before we were sworn in 3.5 million jobs, and before our economic policies were passed and put in effect, we lost another 4,000 jobs. that's what this red line here is, and the red line is bush. the blue line is us. you can see all the jobs lost and the jobs lost in the first several months of our administration. that is before any of our policies were put in place.

you can see these jobs were lost on the republican watch as a consequence of a republican induced recession, that not we, the president and i, the nation inherited. we had not had a single one of our policy initiatives passed yet, and already there were almost 8 million jobs that had been lost. look what happened once our policies began to be put in place. we signed the recovery act. we signed the automobile -- we saved the automobile industry. we gave tax cuts to businesses and homeowners, and things began to change. the loss of jobs changed, and we ended in positive territory. as a consequence, you can see things markettedly changed. we claimed out of the god-awful hole this economy was thrown into, pushed into, and instead of losing jobs, private sector, the private sector as the

president said has added over 4 million new private sector jobs, and for the last 26 months, each and every month, and as you know, we kept pushing, and in march of 2010, we gave tax breaks to companies for hiring unemployed workers, and in august of 2010, the president signed into law, into provision to let the states hire and rehire over 100,000 educators that were laid off because of state and local budgets that had been crunched as a consequence of the recession. in december of 2010, we passed the payroll tax giving each and every american an average of $1,000 tax cut. $11,000 -- $1,000 less taken out of payroll taxes. we repassed that not long ago allowing another $1500 in people's pockets instead of going into taxes. 98% of the american people.

they get a pay stub. they pay payroll taxes. when you cut taxes for people with a payroll tax, 98% of the american people are getting tax cuts. we gave tax breaks to businesses. we hired unemployed veterans. look at the results. 26 straight months of private sector job growth, and more than 4 million private sector jobs, 1 million of those jobs created in the last six months. as is pointed out a moment ago by molly, manufacturing is coming back to the united states of america. 480,000 new manufacturing jobs since we've -- in the last year or so. that is the strongest growth in manufacturing since 1990. by the way, you hear guys say,

well, you know, we didn't bail anybody out, and it would be okay. i was with the chairman of the ford motor company who said privately and publicly, and they are investing another $17 million, ford is, in the united states in new factories, plants, and equipment. he said if you had general chryer not been saved, fordand would have gone under. the reason being the supply chain would have dried up we added since they revered, 200,000 new decent paying jobs, auto worker jobs you can ise a family on, live a middle class life on. just imagine. imagine what would have happened had they passed our jobs bill. every independent -- every indidn't expert in the -- independent expert on t outside saidt wouldave added another 2 million jobs. they refusned to let us pass

it. imagine where we would be if the republicans in congress didn't play bringsmanship with the national debt last august causing us for the first time in the history to have the united states' goal standard, the goal standard is our full faith andin jeopardy. we were downgraded. the economy took a hit. jobs took it hit, and, by the way, if you listen to speaker boehner now. what's he saying when he met with the president last week? he said there's going to be another show down on the debt limit. reason being they want to change social policy. they can't get it done legislatively, so they are threatening to change policy unless we change policy, they arnot going to vote to pay our national obligations. imagine where we'd be if the tea party hadn't taken control of the house of representatives, a group -- a group -- they are honorable people, but a group

set on obstructionism. theye one goal, prevent president obama from a second term with no care of the consequences to the economy, and, folks, we have persevered, but more importantly, you, and the american people persevered through all of this. that doesn't mean a lot of people are not still hurting. we're determined, we're determined to change that. we made important progress, but there's much more to do. the progress you can measure, just look at the chart. progress cannot be denied. progress you can see. progress people know are coming, but for that man or woman going to bed at night, staring at the ceiling, wondering whether they'll going to have their job tomorrow or wondering whether or not they'll be able to stay in their home because their house is under water through no fault of their own.

for that person, for that person, it's still a dire circumstance. we are absolutely determined. we are absolutely determined that that be turned around. so in november, the american people are faced with a stark choice as to who is best prepared to lead this nation for the next four years. i think the choice can be simplified, and obviously, i'm prejudice. [laughter] i'll try to be straightforward as i can on this. i think they are going to have a simple stark choice. are we going to continue to move forward with the initiatives and the type of approach we have taken, or are they going to move back? it's really that simple. the good news is that the choice has never been more clear for the people of new hampshire and the people of the united states of america. that's because governor romney and this new republican party, they are not hiding the ball.

they are not pretending. you listen to those, whatever two, five, 10, 20 debates they had. it's hard to believe the things they said. [laughter] i mean, i'm not joking. i mean, we're -- even your republican friends, weren't some of them surprised we're debating about whether or not a woman has a right to contraception? you know, i mean, these things are -- we -- i think -- this is talking about going back to the future. look, governor romney's telling you exactly what he would do. exactly what he believes. governor romney says he wants to go back to the good ol days of wall street i might add when the economy crashed in 2008. he wants to get rid of the common sense reforms put in effect in 2010 to allow wall street to serve as tucks as the greater single allocator in the world. he says wall street should have fewer regulations like the good

old days. look, in spite of the deficit inherited from the last administration, large part is a consequence of two unfunded wars, an prescription drug plan, and a trillion dollar tax plan, not a penny paid for, and that tax plan, by the way, giving people making over a million dollars $800 billion in tax cuts. he wants to double down on it for the next ten years. in addition to that he's proposing there be another -- and i'm not making this up. he's proposal -- romney's proposing another trillion dollar new tax cut which will mean for people making a minimum of a million dollars, they'll get another $250,000 year on average tax cut on top of the bush tax cut.

to par phrase -- he wants to not only go back to the last administration policies, but do it on steroids. folks, the governor's philosophy seems to be whatever the last administration does, let's do it and do more. think of anything knew that deviates from policies that got us into this hole, other than more of the the same. ladies and gentlemen, you know, these are the guys that ran us into the ditch, and they began to sound like the horse that just won the derby, i'll have another. [laughter] except the horse is a real winner. [laughter] governor romney's prescription of trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealth eliminating rational wall street regulation

and making a middle class pay for it is put forward as a new idea. he's arguing this as a new idea. folksic -- folks, it's like something we have not seen before. folks, we've seen this movie before. we know it doesn't end very well. let me tell you what indent experts said about romney's economic plans. they say his tax cuts alone cost $5 trillion over the next ten years, and they are talking about the deficit that we inherited by and large and the recession forced us to continue to increase it. that's going to force the governor, if he sticks from the $5 trillion tax cut, going to force him to do two things. it's going to balloon the deficit, and it's going to require draconian cuts. it will cost trillions of dollars cut out of programs at

the most vulnerable americans depend upon and the initiatives that have always grown the american economy. investment in research and innovation, infrastructure, road, brimmings, -- bridges, dams, things that provide for productivity to keep the economy moving as well as education. we ranked 16th in the world in the percent of population we graduate from college. how in the lord's name can we lead the world in the 21st century ranked 16th in the world? folks, it will take us back -- it will take us back to a world where nothing is secure about retirement, where medicare, as we know it, will no longer exist, replaced by a voucher plan, where social security is cut and capped when the next generation retires. that's what he calls for. it is called cut and cap. anyone 50 years old, they cut and cap what you can get meaning

you're going to get a lot less, a lot less than you thought you were paying for, and where deep cuts in medicare put americans out of nursing homes. 75% of the people in nursing homes are women who lost their husbands, who couldn't be there but for this medicare. they're going to cut it by close to 40%. ladies and gentlemen, in a nutshell, i think our philosophies can be summarized in two ways. republicans believe the new -- the new republicans, not your father's republican party, these new republicans, they believe in the government where there are no rules for the big guys, no risks for the powerful, and no accountability when they failed. we have a very different approach. what i call a basic american common sense approach, and the american idea, the idea is that when -- when everyone, when everyone is in the deal, when everybody is in the deal, the country benefits.

the idea that what everybody deserves a fair shot, a fair shake, and everybody should play by the same rules and everyone should be held accountable. everybody should be held accountable, an idea that says when the middle class does well, america does well. everybody does well. [applause] folks -- [cheers and applause] folks, not just the middle class. when the middle class, the poor have a way up, and the wealthy do incredibly well in a healthy economy, but governor romney thinks he has a trump card that he plays as to why he should be president, whether or not you agree with his economic philosophy. he says he's better qualified to be president and commander in chief because of his business experience. that's why he should be -- well, it's not -- it's not an irrational argument, but

depending on the business. [laughter] your success in the business. ladies and gentlemen, that's the crooks of his rational. he's not out there talking about his better qualifications to handle foreign policy or national security, but he's qualified because of his business experience. he raised it. let's take a look at the business experience as straightforwardly and as fairly as can be done. obviously, i'm going to be looking at it and the folks are going to watch this on television and say, well, obviously, biden is a democrat and he won't be fair about it. i'll be as fair as i can about it and take a close look. you hear all these stories about his partners buying companies, where they load up a tremendous amountñ&r of debt, and the company's going, everybody loses the job, the community's devastated, but they make money. they make money even when a company goes bankrupt. when workers lose their jobs.

when pensions are wiped out. looks folks, the fact of the matter is when they succeed and the company succeeds, they make money. when the company they get involved with failed, they still make money, a lot of money. here's the interesting -- here's the dirty little secret. when the companies fail, they cost every taxpayer money. it costs taxpayers money in the unemployment insurance that we all pay for that person who is unemployed. it costs other businesses money because we have a thing of national pension fund where other companies pay into. it's called the pension benefit corporation. when the company is broke and loses your pension, there's a fail safe where at least some of the pension you were entitled to can be made good on. somebody pays for this. somebody pays for this. not romney's up vesters. some of romy's supporters say

it's not fair to criticize romney for the work he did in the private sector. that's true. they say it wasn't romney's job or bain capital's job to create jobs. absolutely true. they say it's the job of -- of these private equity companies to create wealth for investors. that when you provide what private equity firms are supposed to do is make wealth for the investors. exactly. exactly. that's their job. it's legitimate. it's legitimate. folks, making money regardless of the consequences for the workers, the companies they acquire or the communities that get wasted, that's another question. folks, making money for your up vesters, which romney did very well, is not the president's

job. the president has a different job. [cheers and applause] romney says we're bashing private capital. it's not true. the guy they quote now is saying that we shouldn't be criticizing romney when i made the same talk a couple weeks ago on morning joe saying biden's right. bide p's right -- biden's right. i'm not criticizing private equity firms, but suggesting the people who run them, the same quality in running the equity firm is not what qualifies you to be president. as president, your job is to see to it that companies make a profit, but not maximize profit at everyone's expense. your job is to think about the workers who get laid off and what you can do to retrain them and get them rehired. your job is to think about communities, how they can get back up on their feet, get a new start, creating new businesses.

your job is to try to set an ceo -- equitable tax system so everybody has a fair shake. your job is to have a tax system -- [applause] you need a tax system that rewards entrepreneurs and investors who invest in science and technology. your job, your job as president is to promote the common good. that doesn't mean the private equity guys are bad guys. they are not. that no more qualifies you to be president than being a plumber. it doesn't -- and, by the way, a lot of awful senator -- smart plumbers. kidding aside, it's not the same job requirement. it's totally legitimate for the president to point this out. to quote president obama, so if you're main argument -- this is quoting the president, he said

this yesterday "so if your main argument for how to grow the economy is i know how to make a lot of money for investors, then you're missing the point of the job of president. [cheers and applause] folks, our focus, another thing to hit directly. some of you have known me for most of my career. what have i always talked about? the middle class. not because i'm middle class joe. i do very well. you pay me a lot of money. [laughter] you pay me a lot of money, but i was raised as a middle class kid. the fact i don't have a savings account, own stocks and bonds doesn't mean i have everything in my house to eliminate conflicts of interest so i kept buying up houses. my house, the one i live in, and i have a beautiful home.

i don't live like i did growing up. i have a beautiful home. you pay me a lot of money, but i remember. i remember. ladies and gentlemen, i find this fascinating. we raise the middle class assed objective. we're told by the other team that this is a class argument, we're engaging in class war fore. ladies and gentlemen, our focus on middle class is not a class argument nor is it a political argument. our focus on the middle class is a reflection of the fundamental economic story of the journey of the history of this country. that's what built this country. that's not some slopping spin. that's what happened. this is why we're strong. [applause] when the middle class does well, everybody does well. when the middle class does well,

not everybody does better than they otherwise would. ladies and gentlemen, everyone is willing to work hard, willing to be held accountable should have an even chance and even opportunity to make a living. ladies and gentlemen, i have not even toughed on romney's foreign policy. [laughter] where he says, for example, that russia is, quote, "our number one geopolitical foe." [laughter] where he says we should be keeping thousands of troops in iraq. he criticizes us for setting a date to turn over responsibility in afghanistan to the afghanis so we can come home. [applause] i have not even touched on romney's social policy either. one that says a woman should no

longer get to make her own decisions about her body and her health, one that says it's okay for insurance companies to charge women more for health insurance than men, to count pregnancy as a pre-existing condition. [laughter] i know this sounds like fiction. [laughter] ladies and gentlemen, the new republican party's attempt to unravel the bipartisan consensus on something i wrote and proudest of in my whole career, the violence against women act. the violence against women act. [cheers and applause] it's become part of our popular culture. businesses, everybody, embraced the notion that a woman has a

right to be free of violence and intimidation, and on the street, her own home, wherefore it is, and these guys in the house just voted down our version, the continuation of the existing violence against women act. they cut out big chunks. folks this is not your father's republican party. what romney's talking about, all of these things will be back a lot. i'll have plenty of time to discuss the foreign time, and plenty of time to touch his social policy, but, ladies and gentlemen, let me make one clear thing absolutely clear to all of you. we will not go back to the 50s in social policy, to the cold war on our foreign policy, and the policies of the last administration, our economic policy. [cheers and applause] we will not do it their way

again, and we intend to move forward. we intend to rebuild the middle class. we mean it. whereas the president said in his last address to the congress, he said there's a basic american promise that if you work hard, you can do well enough to raise a family, own your own home, put your kids to college, and put away a little money for retirement. the president went on to say the defining issue of our time is how we keep that promise. that's why we're running. [cheers and applause] folks -- [cheers and applause] many of you -- many of you know me too well. you know i'm an optimist. you think it's genetic with me. i am not an optimist as my

grandpop would say. i love this when you pick up the national press and refer to biden as the white house optimist like my grandpop said i was the guy who fell off the turnip truck yesterday. i've been there longer than all of them. i'm an optimist because i know you and i understand this country and the american people given half a chance have never, ever, ever, ever, ever let their country down, but they need a chance. they need an even playing field. they need an opportunity. , and, ladies and gentlemen, the deck has been stacked on them. we're unstacking it. folks, you know firsthand. you know what it means to give people a chance. you have seen it here in new new hampshire, here in keene. you watch what happens when you give opportunity, what happens when you create the environment for people to take advantage of

new technologies, when you have a nurturing environment to invite companies and people with new ideas to come in. you've seen it. well, ladies and gentlemen, the whole country's ready. the whole country's ready. all we have to do, all we have to do is level the playing field, not punish anybody wealthy. ladies and gentlemen, i get a kick out of it, and i'll conclude with this. you know, i'm, as i said, you know, you read about me, i'm middle class joe, like i said, i'm the kid who climbed out of a coal mine with a lunch bucket in my hand. [laughter] ladies and gentlemen, what i find and what i resent is those people that talk about we're engagedded in class warfare. they don't understand. your house and mine, middle class neighborhoods, we were raised by people who not only

wanted to live in a dement neighborhood, be able to own their home and not rent, ect.. they also had dreams for us. they dreamed that their kid could start a business some day, maybe be the new steve jobs, maybe be the new multimillionaire or billionaire, maybe be the woman or man who helped find a cure for cancer, maybe be president some day. in my household, as middle class was, my mother and father never doubted that i could be president of the united states or vice president of the united states. they never doubted my brother could do his own business and make money and live an even better life. they never doubted my sister had the ability to be an officer in a corporation. they never doubted it. these guys don't understand us. they think somehow that we don't dream like they do. ladies and gentlemen, for our dreams to realize, you have to have a platform, a middle class

platform where you can live a decent life first. that's what this race is all about. that's what this is going to be in stark relief all about, and, ladies and gentlemen, i appreciate the people of new hampshire, i have faith in the united states of america, and i have faith in you. ladies and gentlemen, we will win because we happen to be right on this subject. thank you, all, very much. [cheers and applause] may god bless our troops. thank you, all. i appreciate it. [cheers and applause] thank you. thanks. ♪ [cheers and applause]

>> right now, take a look around you and think about not where everyone has been, but where they are going. the guy in front of you could win an academy award someday. the girl behind you could be a future president of the united states or even better than that, the mayor of new york city. [laughter] the guy sitting to your right could be a future nobel laureate. okay, maybe not the guy to the right, but certainly the one to the left. >> watch commencement speeches on c-span. sharing thoughts with the graduating class of 2012, saturday through tuesday at noon and 10 p.m. eastern. >> federal funding 1 running out for various programs.

the hearing includes testimony from lockheed sunlighting that oil and gas revenues could be redistricted towards federally funded research and development. this is a hour and 20 minutes. >> all right, before we get started, thank you, all, for coming today. we had here to talk technologies, the business leaders of the council have a long track record of commercial set building technology companies that compete in the global marketplace and make a strong case in that report, and with the government a part of the united states can continue to lead in the clean energy sector. as all of the witnesses today

point out, there's a global race to produce the next generation of energy technologies. prices on our electricity bills are not always reflecting our current energy system that's very exceptive, and the costs all of us pay in national energy and climate and economic in security are unacceptably high, and it's likely the vast growing economies throughout the developing world will be looking to a new generation of technologies that avoid these costs. it's not only a concern about costs and effect on future generations, but also a significant commercial opportunity for u.s. entrepreneurs. fortunately, developing new technologies has historically been a great strength of the united states, and as the witnesses have pointed out, an area where the government has been a dn an effective partner. although there's been a broad consensus in congress, and we've

been sending much more uncertain signals recently in important support programs that already expired or appear to be in danger of expiring, and despite repeated calls to address the real problems of the so-called valley of death in initial technology deployment, instead of expanding on crucial current programs, some in congress are looking to end these programs that we have in place. meanwhile, competitors and potential competitors in the developing world continue to press ahead to court new companies and the talent to develop the next innovations in that area. as these technologies continue to improve and be cost competitive, we should view this as an opportunity to take a global leadership position. we have the best minds working

on the problem, and it's in our national interest to show a clear pathway in developing and deploying technologies here and exporting them abroad rather than go overseas to find opportunities. i said many times the only losers in the clean energy technology race are those who fail to participate, and i hope that the recent paralysis we've seen in congress does not lead us to miss this opportunity. the witnesses today have given great thought to what leads to success and new technology, and i look forward to hearing about their conclusions and what we can do here to put this, and we call on senator mccowski, and we were delayed a minute celebrating that in the back

room, and call on her for any comment she has before turning to the witnesses. >> thank you, very much, and it would be indeed a fine birthday present if we could figure out, as a committee, how to really advance good strong energy policies for the nation using the ingenuity, the opportunity we have as a nation to really build on all of our strengths so thank you for that recognition. i'd like to welcome mr. augustine to the committee here this morning. it was your report on competitiveness rising above the gathering storm that serves as a foundation for legislation passed by an overwhelming margin back in 2007. it wouldn't surprise me if your ultimately could lead to a work on energy innovation similar result. i think most would agree it's time for us to renew a coherent long term approach to energy

development, truly an all of the above approach, innovation, of course, is absolutely at the core of that strategy, and one of the few areas where can and should be providing greater funding, and at the same time, i'm aware if we decide to spend more on energy innovation, we have to make very difficult choices about the amount of spending and the duration as well as what priorities are for it. a couple comments, and first the obvious. investment is required, and that requires taxpayer dollars with our debt situation. greater spending in the area needs to be offset, challenging to find space in the bumming, but i think that presents us with an opportunity here to be financially creative. let's figure out how to make it work, assess priorities and focus on it. for years now, i suggested that a portion of the revenues from increased domestic energy production should be devoted to

energy innovation, a key part of the anwar legislation to increasing the revenues of the today's oil prices and that could develop resources and technologies that will rely on in the future. glad to see the revenues from energy production listed as a possibility in the energy report. beyond how much we spend, we have to think carefully about our priorities. when we look back at where taxpayer dollars have been spent in recent years, it's clear that we have not really gotten to that all of the above policy. we can see that in how much the federal government has spent on solar and wind opposed to some of the other areas. i'm always pointing out the opportunities that we have with methane hydrates. we can see that in the direction the administration has taken in choosing to focus on electric vehicles perhaps as compared to

other promising alternatives. finally, a point about hoping to be involved here. it makes good sense to invest in emergency research and development, but it's best to keep sub subsidizing the same resources and technologies year after year without a clear path towards allowing those technologies to stand on their own in the market. to strike the right balance requires reform of existing programs, possibly the phase out of as many of the subsidies currently in place, and some experts believe that federal efforts should be oriented more towards basic research and away from deployment base in tight fiscal climates that should spent, and i agree with that approach. i think, though, with did comes to energy innovation, we have a lot of thinking and decisions to make, and i hope with the hearing this morning we'll have an opportunity to explore some of that. again, i appreciate the good work that's gone into the report. thank you, mr. chairman. >> well, our first panel is

norman augustine, retires chairman and ceo of lockheed martin corporation, a witness of the committee many times in the past. welcome you back, and we look forward to any comments he has about the report and what he thinks the congress out to do. go right ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [inaudible] there we go. thank you, mr. chairman and members of the committee for this opportunity to share with you some thoughts on america's energy future. i'll be drawing as was mentioned or not work of the american energy innovation counsel, there's a group of seven of us who came together because of concern of the under investment in energy research and development in the nation, and the names of the other six members are in the written statement that i'd like to provide frort.

-- for the record. >> very good. we'll include the entire report in the record. >> very good. i should also acknowledge we received excellent technical and administrative support from the bipartisan policy council organization formed by four of your former colleagues. today, i'm not able to speak directly for my associates in this project because we are a highly informal group. on the other hand, i think that my comments will closely reflect the views of that entire group because there's little difference among us on this issue. we prepared two reports. first of those had to do with the underfunding of research and development in the energy area in our country both by the government and by the private sector. we also came out very strongly for supporting which exceeded exceptions to date. the second report we put out deals with the need for the government to involve itself in

energy research and development, and i'll speak more to that in my remarks. it's probably fair to note that we are not a group that in general welcomes government involvement in the private sector's business and industry. the reason being, of course, that it tends to form distortions in the way that people within business behave and it hurts our competitiveness globally. owner, there's certain area -- on the other hand, there's certain areas where programs are of importance to the citizenry, but which the private sector can't or won't invest, and those would seem to me to be the sort of thing that governments are designed to do, and, indeed, our government has done in the past. there's two other areas where the private sector particularly is reluctant to invest. the first of these has become known as the valley of death,

and in indication of research, there's a second valley, also second valley of death, if you will. the first of these describes the situation where basic research leads to a promising idea, but it's not yet been proven to be feasible in practice, and it is very risky because applying research or performing the research is a long term proposition in terms of time. it often produces failure and even when it succeeds, the performer or funder of the work may not be the beneficiary. yet, the work may well benefit society as a whole. the second challenge, indication of the energy field is that energy is so capital intensive, and that tends to discourage new entrance into the market place and discourages putting new ideas in the market place because they are so disruptive to the investment that's in place.

the government, of course, has many options to support energy research and development, and the advancement of energy in general, this goes all the way from contracts to grants to direct involvement in the market place to regulation to tax policy, support and more, and the government has done many of these things in the past. we're all familiar with. one thing that one certainly has to reflect upon and be aware of is that when performing research and also the kind of development we deal with in energy where the second valley of death requires taking a proven concept, showing that it could be scaled to be economically competitive at scale. that's a costly jump. usually for costly than the

first threshold, and the threshold is fairy unique to the energy field. innovation -- oh, what i was going to say is we certainly should be prepared to accept failures. that's a characteristic of research and development. now, i would, for a moment, excuse failure as due to incompetence or nefarious activity, but this is the unknown here, and when you do that, even the best intentions can lead to failure. finally, i would just note that innovation really is the key to succeeding in this area, and fourthly, americans have been -- america has been very good at 0 in the past, and, in fact, it's one of the view notary public-diminishing -- non-diminishing advantages we have today in the global marketplace, and in that regard, i believe our ability to solve the energy challenge is really just a microcosm, a very

important microcosm, but of america's position in the overall competitiveness arena in today's global market place, and so with those opening comments, mr. chairman, members of the committee, i'd be happy to address any questions you have. >> well, thank you very much, and thanks, again, for all the work that went into this and other reports that you've championed and been involved in. let me start with a couple of questions. you know, whenever we get into this discussion, it strikes me that a major change in the environment, which needs to be acknowledgededs as we talk about what role our government should play in working with industry in these areas, a major change in the environment is what's happening with other governmental support around the

world, and i think, you know, for a lot of our history, the involvement of the government in order to assist or work with industry and partner with industry to be successful was not really required to a great extent. ..

in this area. i don't know if you have thoughts about that. >> i would certainly agree with your conclusion that things have changed greatly. we do have a foreign government very much involved in their supporting so-called private sector and i've learned the hard way in my inexperience private companies can't compete with government whether it be another government or our own, so i think it's unfortunate thing that's taking place. on the other hand i think it is a fact of life my hope would be our government would have to evil itself only to the extent of one helping preserve a level playing field so our companies can compete fairly internationally and second hour

government would support those things the private sector can't do or won't do that the government has done for many years all away from building highways to put into research in place to produce the internet or gps or other things we take for granted now. other governments are deeply involved and the first part of the government should be to encourage other governments to limit their involvement in the second category i described not to become active participants. the piece of good news is to become overly involved when they make a mistake is a big one and carries throughout the economy so i think there's good reasons for the government supporting itself as it has in the past but we can't hide from the realities of today

>> we left to give speeches around the congress about how the government shouldn't pick winners and losers. like most of these in as pointed out almost always wrong. you pointed out that arpa-e and darpa has been a great success over decades. they are as i understand the way that arpa has operated in arpa-e is now operating it is in the business of trying to pick the winners. it doesn't always do it and it doesn't make big bets by a relative sense, but it certainly

tries to identify those areas of technology development that have great promise for the country and you mentioned some of them the internet and gps and some of the others that have proven to be very useful and have been winners so i would be interested in any thoughts you have on the subject of picking winners and losers. >> that's the first accusation that's made is you don't want the government picking winners and losers and if you make it that simplistic i guess i would agree with the comment. the problem is the real world the government does and has to pick winners and losers everyday the government decides and which ones get canceled and that once again the fact of life. there are three boards that are important if the government is

going to have to have difficult choices which the government has to do. the first of those is the competition to the maximum possible extent so everybody has a fair shot contributing and being involved. second whatever is done should be highly transparent and the third thing that needs to be done is to assure that we've confident people in the government who are able to make sensible judgments without conflicts and given those criteria the government not only can attest to make choices to pick winners and losers. you cited other parts of the government to this i would add to your list i suppose i had involvement in the early on so i have a conflict here but there's a certain parallel given the number of tools in its tool kit by the congress from taking

equity positions and gransta contracts to giving advice and the desires you to play carrying out its mission so it would be another it simply make choices everyday. >> thank you very much. >> thank you mr. kernan. mr. augustine, in the report concluded we could have the greatest impact if we focus on energy. others have said that the focus for the major impact should be on the deployment. as we are trying to figure out how we allocate scarce dollars how we prioritize what part of the technology chain do you

figure we should be focusing on the most? >> that's a difficult question. certainly if you don't focus on research there will be nothing to deploy and if you focus entirely research to play the benefits, you need to do both. as it happens research costs less than the development deployment or proof of principle proof of scaling so it may be more money is for the latter even though ideally i think the role of the government is more justified focused on research. it used to be the u.s. government two or three decades ago provided about two-thirds of the research development in this country today it's about a third. the problem is the industry which has picked up the two-thirds now almost entirely

getting out of all our business, the classic example what's happening in the industry i had my own experience in the regard. so, my short answer is we need to do both. i think to focus on the follies of debt the to death. how to take basic research ideas funded by the national science foundation and turn those into projects and get across the valley the and in all cases i believe the industry should involve some of their own investment and have skin in the game. >> it's trying to find that balance and determining where who have those areas in the

private sector it isn't willing or able to be involved how we define all that it's difficult than it might sound. for this innovation in my opening statement i mentioned that one of the things i think makes sense is to take the revenues from the greater domestic energy production to help pay for our innovation one of the options sleeper she that some of the other possibilities include releasing energy prices that's kind of tough for us right now. i'm reading your language that says they do not advocate one option over another so that's probably out there but as one of the individuals on the committee

do you think that there is one approach that is perhaps better than the authors that you outlined there for us? >> i suspect once again it is appropriate also why do have some that i think our better than others treat today as you know we send a billion dollars overseas today to the foreign countries to the net cost of the oil that we buy for the last few years we've been averaging the order of $2 billion a year on energy r&d that suggests to me that there's great opportunity to find the kind of money that we need to triple the r&d which is what our little group is recommending. the sources of that have

certainly in my own case 25 years ago or more i was proposing i remember when it costed 19 cents a gallon what's of 3 cents to it and put the money in research and development and my friends told me i would destroy the economy if we did that. today we have 4.5% and the money goes to other nations a few of them would like to tell us with the money we spent so there's clearly something wrong with that model. i would hope we would in fact provide the tax if you will want

i realize it is a very difficult issue today. the industry that most benefits in the long term any part of the cost is appropriate to me and you have an industry that spending maybe half a percent of its sales on revenues of r&d spent 10% in the pharmaceutical industry spends 20% and the electronics about 13 it seems not unreasonable that to really think it is more of a surprise. >> i appreciate you coming.

>> one of the ways to get to our energy future is again using those revenues from our fossil fuel to help build out the technology, the innovation to read into the next generation of energy. >> senator udall. >> thank you mr. chairman and the ranking member for holding a very important hearing none innovation. always good to see you mr. augustine for your service to the country and your ideas are always spot on the and i hope we will listen to and implement your recommendations. we are in the midst of a clean energy revolution and by that i think we mean all energy sources in all energy technologies we can't have as you point out

inconsistent and uncertain innovation policies that's why this is important. i have my notes here that i said we need to be leaders in this field and we've always been a paragon of innovation but i think about the fact we have been leaders particularly in every energy technology and solar and wind in the 70's now we are trying to play catch-up i'm biased and honored to represent the six colorado we are a national leader in many areas we of a great model of industries of research institutions like the national energy lab in the government and of encouraging energy innovation for job creation and economic growth and then a venture to say

americans have a more secure energy future, so thank you for pointing out all these possibilities to us. let me move to arpa-e. you talk about it as a model program that we should prioritize and we can grow it going forward. he recommended other parts they could use the arpa-e model. would you speak to that held this model could be applied in more specific and broadway's in other agencies and activities? >> i would be glad to do that. let me try to describe what i think is the essential facets and realized in some cases they

would feel they didn't devote itself we now do 20% better the devotion to this house to do it three times better and when they succeeded it was really an impact will event. decisis and what they would support and when they could see something with a money elsewhere on dhaka getting a lot of authority to the project managers in the project so another thing they did is expected people to stay there for five years and then finally

i would have to cite the arpa government has been. those are the sorts of things and it's very problem-solving oriented. they were turning people loose with a goal of not increasing the value product 20% three x

and that's helpful to hear all that which isn't necessarily the way things are done in government or the private sector you'll know it under your to which the private sector would put teams together to do just what arpa-e and darpa still today does not mean the remaining time i talk about how we help american households transition the initial capital investments for cost prohibitive we now see some creative ways in which presidential mobile energy systems are at least senator whitehouse and alexander have introduced the bill the acronym, the real access to leasing and cosponsoring the legislation and what it does is create a secondary market by having the government ensure the value and they scored this at no cost which is always great in this town today. can you speak to that model are there other areas you might have

identified where we could help those that want to make the right investments and find the cost of the capitol prohibitive or difficult to embrace the initially? >> yes i think the sort of thing you describe really addresses the other side of trying to encourage clean energy implementation one side is to encourage the research of a plant and the other side is to help the consumer afforded by subsidizing i don't like the word subsidizing but i will use it certain forms of energy buildings every energy efficient we need to be more

energy-efficient and i think the grand scheme of things today we have a remarkable opportunity to bring together the idea of the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to recover the gas could buy time to pursue some of these really promising clean energy opportunities to pursue the dependency on america and oeo we were number one in the and wind power to they would lose the lead and i was recently in japan struck by how much we have lost. >> thank you again for your leadership.

>> senator franken? >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. augustine. we seem to have a debate in the senate over the very nature of the role of government in new technologies coming and i appreciate the ranking member being here again i don't see my colleagues from the oversight and we have these hearings a lot and either they don't show up tall or they come in and make a statement. we needed the development for all kinds of technologies that have led to all kinds of jobs. we talk about jobs civilian

nuclear reactors creating the internet. the long list of government work for all these industries just shows how the track record of them with a track record wouldn't continue to be, is their anything about clean energy and renewable energy that is different by its nature different what they have in

common the fact that the were high risk undertakings offering high pay off and i think energy puts this very well. it comes at a cost if you will to a power that you would never get there with the private sector it just won't happen, that's right and if you talk of the nuclear fusion that is a 60 year project will. i think that is a tremendous promise and we should continue

to invest in that. there's been support for the industry for the development of shale and develop all the cut developing drilling that's been done by the government support in the industry we're going to be for some of this stuff will not pay for it with some of the subsidies with this very mature industry. i don't understand the unwillingness of my colleagues on the oversight to be present

and recognize what role the government has played. you mentioned energy efficiency, and retrofitting you touched on a little bit. that means things like the smart meters and energy use or efficient microprocessors to make batteries last longer and innovation and batteries are something that the government has been doing in this latest round of government funded research. one thing we did in minnesota that's helped create jobs and retrofitting and this will be a question naturally we have an energy efficiency standard that our utilities have to meet and

every year we have to improve by 1.25%. do you think that is an area where if we did that naturally when we do that in minnesota the company's co like i think i will invest in this retrofit of my customer in the money up front and will pay for itself if we did a national renewable energy standard not renewable energy standard that efficiency standard for these utilities that have a good effect on our use of energy >> i do believe energy efficiency is an important part of this problem. there is no one thing that's going to solve it nor did you

suggest that. but if we can encourage the use of controllers power and the time of day to use energy were just using less energy that has to encourage the public to do that i think is important. my bottom line, senator, is i spent ten years in the government and traveled the countries and having seen all that i need great believer in the private sector doing whatever it can. there's one area the market itself fails and the energy market has failed and without government support the type you describe and the other types that has been described we will not solve the energy problem in

this country. >> thank you. you've been a successful businessman, haven't you? >> i.t. cubin successful but that is on my car. >> senator murkowski to have additional questions? >> i did, mr. sherman but we also have a second panel coming upon, but i have to have you fill in the blank white you think the energy sector has failed. what is it about energy that has made it more complicated? >> i think a number of things when is the high capital cost in the long term the facilities but i think more importantly its highly regulated industry it's controlled dividend, oil industry is controlled by cartels has found its way into

the energy market today one of the things you all to do is to help bring the free enterprise system into the market. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. augustine, thank you very much for your testimony and the good work that's gone to the reports we appreciate it very much. >> thank you. it's always a privilege before this committee. >> why don't we go to the second panel, we have two witnesses on the second panel, mr. heath and zindler of policy analysis for bloomberg new energy finance. he's testified before. mr. jesse jenkins is also here come the director of energy and climate policy with a breakthrough institute in oakland california and we are told today as your birthday as well it's a big day for birthdays. >> we have cupcakes in the back.

>> that's right. >> why don't we have the same procedure here that we did with mr. augustine and have each of you give five or six minutes of summarizing what you think we should know from your testimony. >> you want to be first? >> thank you. good morning, chairman bingaman, senators, ladies and gentlemen, happy birthday to michael panelist senator murkowski it's an honor and a privilege to be here before the committee again. i join you in my role of the energy finance division at bloomberg focused on the clean energy sector. our group provides accurate actionable data in sight on investment technology policy trends and clean energy. my remarks today represent my views alone and not a corporate position be there bloomberg or energy finance the do not represent specific investment

advice and shouldn't be construed as such. that's what the lawyers told me to tell you. in june of 2010 my firm produced a study in partnership with the nonprofit clean energy concluded crossing the valley of death solutions to the next generation of clean energy to the next generation clean energy project financing debt. the report examined various challenge facing energy technology companies looking to scale up while driving the cost down. interviews with more than five dozen technologists, entrepreneurs and investors in the clean energy space. our studies have since export this area in greater depth and advanced discussion and important ways most notable has been the american energy innovation council of work on american competitiveness life of a witness to see jenkins and others heath with insights in

this area. we have significant growth in recent years, new investments to the industry which total $54 billion in 2004 and $189 billion in 2009 rose to two injured $53 billion last year. in fact in the fourth quarter of 2011 our firm counted the 1 trillion new dollar invested in the sector. three progress on the respective learning curve the module in the factory gate dropped by more than half in just the last 16 months. the efficiency of wind turbines continues to improve use of electric vehicles are starting to kick down to a substantial part of the progress as a result of innovation that much of it is to simply economies of scale. the production of the crop is wrapped up for the unit costs have come down.

but or not the capitol markets are today providing sufficient financing to address the valley of death conundrum. i would argue that they do not and it was our examination and reveals why. the bus to dirty to new capital in the clean energy sector in any given year towards the well-established low risk technologies. 5. $1 billion of the two entered $63 billion that we track last year came in the form of a venture-capital in the newest technologies and within the portfolio they are now spending less money on the earliest stage making fewer investments in companies the so-called chellie of draft technology stage of the earliest technology developed that certainly hasn't been bridged so far. similarly the riddle of the commercials of the leader stage commercialization valley of death also remains unsolved. for a time it appears the solution might come from the public stock exchanges where new

fuels, solar and electric vehicle companies raise billions on the initial public offering to support their growth. but public fund raising is all but evaporated in recent courses of clean energy. today for instance there's half a dozen next generation firms looking to the ipo remains to be seen if any of them will be able to float their share to the sight i would note facebook minute to be valued at $100 billion linked in is valued at $10 billion considers to be an appetite for investors for dot com start-ups, maybe not start-ups that dot com cos. what the risk appetite for clean energy companies is different at this particular moment. before concluding i would like to commit to address the question whether u.s. stance in comparison to its peers and clean energy technology development and deployment and a rhythm to size development and deployment should be addressed separately. in terms of deployment there can be little debate that we trail

nations such as germany and italy in the installation of new queen power generation. the same goes for the manufacturing of the conventional equipment with the u.s. often lagging behind china and others. on the question of new technology development there remains much to plea for, however. the clean energy marketplace cannot be sustained primarily by subsidies and already we're seeing signs of declining support from the governments around the world. rather, the industry must and we think it will compete and be its fossil rivals on price without government support. for some technologies and some parts of the world this is already occurring but today when that happens far and wide it still lies ahead. when it arrives with the u.s. be home to most critical new energy technologies and the associated in detecting capacities will the u.s. the market maker for these technologies or a price taker for equipment in the company's overseas? this remains to be seen that there are hopeful signs for the

u.s. despite the lack of investment. the country is home to world class research institutions and laboratories and for investing three out of four venture-capital dollars for clean energy coming from the u.s. to read in short in my view no nation may be better positioned to zero in the long term energy technology future than the united states. the only question is whether these resources can be coordinated to maximum advantage and that is where public policy must enter the picture. thank you very much for your time and i look forward to your questions pete >> thank you very much mr. jenkins to respect remember murkowski and members of the committee i direct the energy climate primm at the institute an independent public policy think tank based in oakland california it's an honor to appear before you today to discuss the role of energy innovation particularly on my birthday and senator murkowski. advanced energy policy and markets in the united states or of the key inflection point in recent years u.s. and advanced energy sectors have grown rapidly adding jobs even through

the depth of the recession while reducing cost for many technologies including solar and wind power, batteries for electric vehicles and biofuels. still the recent cost decline marked important maturation and progress nearly all the advanced sectors currently rely on public policy support to gain and extending foothold in the well established markets. the policy support is poised to turn from boom to bust. total annual spending supporting a defense and energy industry surged to $44.3 billion in 2009 but it is now poised to decline 75% to 11 billion by 2014 that's according to original analysis of 92 federal policies supporting advanced energy sectors conducted by the bricker institute and recently published scholars of the brookings institution and resource institute has beyond boom and bust putting cleantech on the path of subsidy independence. of the 92 programs we examine the full 70% are now scheduled

to expire by 2014. the topic of the hearing is very timely. with the u.s. advanced energy policy system said to be wiped clean in the coming years might be on the boom and bust co-authors and i recommend smart energy policy reform along the two key fronts. first, energy diplomat so cities and policies should be reformed to better drive and reward innovation and move to advanced energy sectors toward subsidy independence as soon as possible. second, we should strengthen our federal energy r&d and commercialization institutions and investments. our recommendations on energy r&d and commercialization find agreement with recommendations of the american energy innovation council and some of bloomberg finance thinking on policies to help private entrepreneurs and firms across the so-called clean energy valleys of death. i'm happy to discuss this in greater detail to follow but i want to focus here on subsidy reform. first when discussing the role of government in energy innovation it's important to know energy is a commodity like

a lump of copper we don't care much about the quality of the to what an hour of electricity or a gallon of fuel itself. what we care about are the products and services we derive from the fuel. as such while pharmaceuticals or electronics command a price premium from customers by offering new value-added features new energy technologies must compete on price alone great from the get go. this is an extremely challenging task especially when facing competition from fossil fuels that have enjoyed over a century to mature and develop and it helps explain why the government must play a more proactive and extended role in driving energy innovation than other sectors. in light of this the government's role is critical of least two fronts. first, policy is the key to jump-start market demand from the energy technologies that currently cost more than the well entrenched conventional fuels and with otherwise not attract the private sector investment. second and equally important,

government policies must strive sticky innovation, cost decline and technology improvements that could advance the maw sector starts full cost competitiveness with mature fossil fuels. with federal funds now pointing to a contract my colleagues and i believe now is the time to reform energy subsidies to ensure the official the accomplish both of these objectives driving market demand and a continual innovation. we should not abandon today's still maturing defense and energy sectors but neither can we afford to perpetually subsidized industries without making steady progress on price and performance is this criteria for the reform to ensure these policies reward companies for developing, producing and continuously improving advanced energy technologies. in brief optimized deployment policies should establish competitive markets among technologies at similar stages of maturity. they should avoid looking at new technologies to the portfolio to

produce sufficient business certainty and maximize the impact of tax payer dollars private investment. above all the deployment policies should provide only targeted and temporary support for technologies that are maturing and improving. the should be designed to drive and reward the country will cost reductions and performance improvements and should steadily reduce subsidy levels in public support as the technologies improve. eventually the subsidies should fade away entirely as the sectors become fully competitive with conventional fuel. the role of government driven markets and inefficient for a chance energy technologies should be limited and direct. the goal should be to help develop the industries that can stand on their own and thrive without public subsidies as soon as possible several policy mechanisms may be designed to meet the criteria and i look forward to discussing those in more detail to follow our lead you for considering the recommendations. thank you.

>> think you very much. i believe senator murkowski wanted to make a statement. >> if i may i have to excuse myself to attend an appropriations marked otherwise i wouldn't be sitting and asking a series of questions i'm intrigued by the proposals about how we get to reform the subsidies and figured out what the reena thing is. i think it is a key part to what we need to consider. i do have a series of questions i would like to submit to both of you for the record and perhaps we would have an opportunity to visit outside of the committee hearing to follow one of the proposals. this is an important topic i think we all recognize that the energy sector is one where things are constantly evolves in and how we appropriately integrate the federal government into the incentive process thank

you. appreciate it. >> thank you very much. let me go ahead with a couple of questions. first what me ask mr. zindler one of the policies that some governments have pursued is to establish clean energy banks to help deployment of clean energy. i believe the united kingdom and australia in particular have moved ahead with this. can you describe what this phenomena is and what you think the benefits might be if we were to consider that or if you don't think it makes sense here say that as well. go right ahead the obviously you

are well aware here in the u.s. under your leadership and a first test in the attempt to establish the administration, and i think as you know and it's important to mention the same idea is being pursued by other countries around the world right now. australia is close to finalizing a 10 billion-dollar green investment bank. the u.k.'s committing potentially 3 billion pounds. india has made some announcements, not think that plan has moved forward to far. the basic idea of all these institutions more or less is to create a separate sort of quasi public entity that gets funding from government and then the essentially can operate relatively autonomously making investments in the new technologies and then cast those technologies to the love and the winners get a return on that investment can reinvest and

continue on, the idea is that it becomes -- it does start with the government money to begin that it becomes self sustaining overtime. i think one of the interesting and finishes of this model was that by kind of breaking it out of the government infrastructure you can give more leeway to make faster decisions and to operate a more flexible manner to meet different kind of that's been you might get. that's the idea generally speaking and it is certainly intriguing and it's to address the sort of so called a demonstration valley of debt to the cadet so that is 100 to a hundred million dollars to might be needed to build the next-generation biofuel plant or plant uses a new solar technology venture capitalists

like that much better willing to take that much will the don't have that much money. institution like that that is willing to provide large amounts of capital and the carrier is great glee offers potential to >> thanks. but me ask mr. jenkins a question. you listed in your testimony several policies that could be structured to structure some of the objectives and you've identified and one of the policies you mentioned is reverse auction incentives. you see those could be established for the very in technologies to try to destroy competition and innovation. i was wondering if you to elaborate on that a little bit and tell us what, how you think that my working with the there are examples of that that we ought to look at.

>> thank you, senator. you mentioned the role of government and key technologies that have developed in the past and one of those is microchips where the government played a role for virtually all of the market's in the 60's and 70's for the space program and the missile program that job is effectively driving it on the cost of the technologies to the point they could be more widely adopted by the private sector. the reverse options have the potential to place similar rules as government procurement. in southern california utilities are using reverse option programs to produce solar panels at record low prices and to use the reverse mechanism to create a competitive market opportunity for the firm's for their projects to meet a certain set of demand and a number of megawatt hours utilities' need to procure from sola project. the winning bids have strong

penalties for noncompliance which is a critical aspect of the reverse options to ensure people are providing accurate bids, and in the process southern california utilities are securing several hundred megawatt solar under $90 per megawatt which are lower than the prices we seen in the last quarter so it's a model that has been used in other markets in india and china and brazil to the varying degrees of success depending how well they are able to police on and on performance contracts but it's a model that meets the criteria that the outline and creates competitive markets interest on the press because it is constant feature of the competition and firms to reduce cost to expand the market share since one of the policies we think we should look very closely at and i should also note some of the colleagues on the republican side of the aisle have proposed similar mechanisms in the past for the deployment of wind or solar. so it seems like an idea that

that has been bouncing around calls owls well and i think if we should take a close look at it to consider to drive this market opportunities but also the cost reductions for these technologies. >> thank you very much. senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to ask you, mr. jenkins. i spoke a little earlier about the government's support for the oil industry and gas industry support for the industry to the development of fracturing and directional drilling. can you talk a little bit about that? >> this is the result of an independent investigation conducted in industry folks from the oil and gas sector as well as government researchers to piece together what was the process of developing the key

technologies that enable the gas evolution that is sweeping across domestic energy markets in the united states. we fought with a number of other technologies the role of government support and innovation to the difficult of a number of the technologies the were needed to unlock previously of recoverable resources. so to summarize that includes the eastern gas shales project a series of public private drilling demonstration project by the energy research development agency with the research consortium receive partial funding and r&d oversight for the federal energy regulatory commission committee to the discussion senator murkowski about funding funded by eight users or tax on gas transmission so we set aside a little bit of the fund in the

way that mr. augustine mentioned to drive further innovation in that sector because it is an intriguing model. the early fracturing technologies were also developed by the department of energy and he which is now the national energy technology lab to the national laboratories role in developing the imaging technology initially to detect potential structures and collapses and coal mines and the was a key technology later applied to understanding the geology of shale deposits and where the factors whiteaker said private industry could figure out where to locate the drills and tractors and beyond the initial demonstration of the technology there was a pergola of time it was technically recoverable but prohibitively expensive compared to the more conventional extraction technologies and this is the second key will the government has to play.

the government instituted the section 29 production tax credit for unconventional gas is for shale and methane in place from 1980 to 2002 that made it profitable for the private sector to continue to develop and enervate upon the extractions. without that conventional tax credit for have been a profitable return for private sector innovators. >> so really the government brought the industry and created the technology that made it possible which is in one way the first volley of death and then created the market's and subsidized at in the second valley of death, so when my colleagues on the other side aren't here when they sing the praises of fracturing and then the demonize the government

picking winners and losers it seems like they are zindler don't know the history of this industry. would that be a fair statement? spec that may be the case. the history has a clear record of the government has played a substantial role partnering with the private sector shouldn't diminished driving innovation in the sectors, but the risks, the capitol requirements and the time horizons require the technologies for word are prohibited and this is where the private sector does fail. you need the right kind of partnership between the smart government policies and the limited targeted way to address the barriers and that will unlock them to do what they do best. >> i will take that as a yes. >> mr. zindler, i think that you kind of -- this is the chairman was asking about. i think you spoke to it, but i want to specifically talk about the korean energy development administration. do you think that is a useful

model as a way of getting over the valley of death? >> potentially it certainly has the opportunity. there is a short circuit in the market that i try to sort of articulate, and i don't know if i did earlier but basically there is not the right kind of money out there for this kind of tasked for the large scale demonstration projects and so what it is some other models were made you change the tax rolls or whatever it is, you know, that is a market disconnect this screaming out for some kind of solution, and i think there's a number of interesting ideas out there but that is one of them. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> did you have any additional questions? if not, we can conclude the hearing at this point.

>> i don't want to put a crimp in your day. >> that is what might as for. >> i want to ask about china. sometimes we've helped u.s. companies come up with technologies and then when these companies go to do something in china, china insists on their intellectual property giving up their trade secrets and i think this violates the basic free trade principles. center web has looked at this issue and i believe there's a committee on the solutions to

this problem. do either of you have any opinions on how funding agencies can protect the taxpayer from did technologies? >> i will take a crack at that. it's tough obviously. this sector the u.s.-china relationship is at the very interesting juncture. in fact as you may have seen last week, the department of commerce announced new tariffs on chinese goods missile equipment imported into the united states, so there is tension and i will tread carefully in my remarks on this. i think that to some degree the chinese government made some of the most important decisions three or four years ago when it did make it difficult for an outside companies to compete for contracts and now in the

meantime we saw a scale of domestic wind turbine manufacturing in china and really in particular for the solar foot of a text over that time and these become world leaders. on the one hand as you think about the politics of this, i understand the concerns of creating jobs and protecting intellectual property. on the other, i think it's important to note in part because of the scale of the cost of solar for instance has never been cheaper than it's been two weeks and again that undercut solyndra. >> really part of the issue of [speaking solyndra is that it's an interesting example of a company trying to look longer range about driving down costs and literally got caught up to a large degree would was gone and the very moment so the conventional sector for solar has scaled fester and come down

faster. >> so they were undercut by the fact that the chinese spent so much in promoting their own solar industry to make it so much cheaper but their long-term viability became longer term because the had a higher quality but more expensive product, right? >> what they were doing is looking further down the road at basically the future a rise faster and i think the anticipated that happens for a number of reasons it wasn't just the chinese is the capacity comes on line in taiwan and other places as well, but the solar market has rapidly expanded and frankly ahead of itself the last couple of years and that's driven down prices through sharply. >> one thing to add the current markets for today for the

offense energy technologies are substantial but they are almost entirely government credit markets by subsidies in europe and china and the united states or elsewhere and we have to keep our eye on the ultimate prize which is the development of cost competitive technologies that can scale 5 trillion-dollar energy markets without subsidies so the game in the long term is who can develop the technologies that are cost competitive to export the global markets 90 plus% of the growth is coming from outside of the country's in the emerging economies and those countries are going to be unable or unwilling to substantially subsidized the deployment of the technology so one thing we can focus on to drive the competition enhance the competition and reduce the cost to the taxpayer now is the investments we level in creating the markets to have to continually drive down the cost of the technologies, support the right incentives for the firms to continue the enervate and if

we do that right and i think provide direct continuity over the medium term and the right policy incentives and markets we can succeed not competing china and take root that can deploy their technology without subsidy of about the need for ongoing public support. ..

it. >> it to be was because of the government partnership to develop those technologies. now we have a massive new source of energy creating tens of thousands of jobs. 2005 that sector was a tiny contributor and they were not cost effective prelude pass the tipping point* now there is a revolution and we export that expertise to try that and the south africa. that is a parable what we should do with other technologies.

shale is great for expanding energy supply. we should continue to have made their bursars' of clean technologies use said we can't in the future senator. >> we could not and on a better note. they do. >> very useful testimony. we appreciate it. that will conclude the hearing. [inaudible conversations]

>> good afternoon. ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the daily briefing. on thursday president obama will travel to iowa with his latest to do this to support manufacturing with the clean energy sector to pass legislation to extend the tax credit and the band's energy manufacturing tax credit. i am joined by heather zichal who just concluded a meeting with wind energy developers to discuss the

value of the tax credits to a range of industries and communities to work together to ensure they are passed. we're joined also by 81 ceo of wind energy systems located in a western suburb of chicago. started testing gearboxes today they operate two factories with 380 employees. it shows what could have been if we fail to extend tax credits. we enjoy a tax credit in the past we hope to garner support going forward.

i will turn it over to heather zichal she will turn it over to terry royer. i will call when you for questions. then i can't take other questions. >> the president proposed to do for congress a number of key provisions to create jobs. the key energy provision first production and tax credit. expires this year has a credit per kilowatt hour for wind producers and advanced energy manufacturers credit gives 1/3% discount to invest in capital equipment for clean energy in the united states.

all have been supported by democrats and republicans. the president will be in new 10, iowa with a employ a 700 workers at ppi to show the credit to the success but looking forward to continued success. when it comes to the credit extension is supported by the national association of manufacturers including governors association like branstad and brownback as well as republicans in the house and senate. in the fall of bill was introduced that has 100 co-sponsors and 21 are republicans. you are seeing bipartisan support making progress building of wind energy.

because thousands of jobs across the country would be lost. thanks to our investment of clean energy, we have nearly doubled energy generation from geothermal and solar sources since 2008. winter by has increased 27% last year loan. the visitation tax credits and manufacturing increase the domestic content of recent years. they have now reached 60% that is up 45%. that means more american jobs. while these are encouraging trends thousands of jobs

with the supply chain are at risk if they renew the credit. we know from the past insulation drops and job loss occurs. we just wrapped up the meeting with secretary salazar and other individuals, developers, man ufacturers. of the 82 shares of the take away wind has made progress with the efficiency and reliability. this was a banner year but without the extension of the tax credit we could see 37,000 job loss. "without the credit the industry could fall off a cliff." companies would refocus efforts outside of the

united states taking investment dollars with them. >> cohmad we see no projects 2013 in the united states" and jobs will move to canada without the credit." without bipartisanship we are hopeful we could get the extension renewed as quickly as possible. i would like to introduce terry royer. >> it is a pleasure to be here us one of the 450 manufacturing companies that has come about because of a bipartisan support for the tax credit. ministries have the ability to scale up there is demar passion then to create jobs

in the united states we went to 20% production to more than 65% these are real manufacturing jobs like my family had growing up in se iowa. the story about job creation and what we started five years ago. more than 70% of the capacity has happened in the united states. creating more than 75,000 direct jobs and indirect jobs as a result of the growth. i am speaking for more than 450 company is.

starting with 11 employs now have 380 today. with the uncertainty by not extend the tax credit by company will be impacted and the other companies will also. not just the manufacturing companies but the diner down the street. the supply chain levy impacted. we need to consider the support that we have to move it forward. it can continue to create jobs into the future. thank you. >> we will now take questions. >> can you talk about what you are doing to get congressional support and the reaction? how likely it will pass? >> thank you. you will hear from the

president on thursday and as you have heard investing in clean energy is a priority. the good thing about the proposal is a has a long history of bipartisan support. of the chamber and others. working hand in hand with those of industry that could communicate the potential job loss or raise looking at members of the extension to translate what that means in their home district. we are working everyday with the legislative team to find vehicles to move as quickly as possible.

>> do have an estimate you need the tax credits replace? two years? four years? for the industry to be self sustaining? >> what we have to stop doing is start and stop tax credit. the industry could scale up, the equipment is more efficient, the cost has decreased 30%. the industry is getting that scale. how much longer? we believe it could stand on its own long-term. today we are competitive of natural gas. however we know that is a commodity. i like to point* out to they

are all important. we need all forms in our portfolio but wind is not a commodity. 10 years from now will not cost any more a day and it does today. today it is not expensive but what about tomorrow for guest? and has to be part of the solution of long-term. >> how much longer? >> we scaled the industry up and now we cannot pull the rug out. there is a time horizon and. after that it is good. what we have brought down with the supply chain we are within striking distance.

we would just kill the momentum for sure. >> in other testimony developers say if they don't get the tax credits than they will see a production you could not make those assessments. is that something fact is time sensitive. moving to canada, are you not make anything next year? >> my company is an example to the that is why laugh all we started to talk about the credit of up as have the developed property to permit to order to those so we do

expect impact without immediate action. >> what will it take for your country at -- company to repatriate? >> all companies will be impacted and we will make business adjustments. >> sometimes if mr. shen is hesitant to give numbers. what give cu confidence. >> the numbers cited is what we heard directly. with respect to wind energy

and tens of thousands of jobs, it is also about the supply chain, additional jobs created. businesses are forced to make difficult decisions and one told us we know that these are jobless and real jobs. and we cannot support the industry it is that the pivotal time. >> there is a steady put out called the never again that speaks to those statistics of the 37 those in jobs lost but also look at but growth trajectory what it can

continue to be if we stay on this path and future job growth is important to talk about. >> is in the study and the answer is available. >> thank you for coming. i will continue with the briefing.

some people think ashes should make a statement about the freedom of the press and we try to send to them. my inclination is not do say so. i think i should stay out. >> mr. president you should be silent. i would.

>> good morning. i apologize for being five minutes late. everyday the tens of millions of americans go online to search for information. shop, pay bills, access

social networking. to say the obvious it has transformed every aspect of our alliance. what is less obvious is the information collected every time we visit a web site. but they have to place trust that the information is safe, secure, and used appropriately. whenever that means. the incentive to miss use information is very grave. could consumers and permission is the currency of the web at. the value has created untold riches for those who have successfully harvested it.

not necessarily bad as it has content to be accessed for free and allows companies to offer services for free. but unfettered collection data poses the significant press. right now consumers have notorious to manage how their information is collected or used. whatever limited choices they do have our often too difficult to use with the word the privacy policies. people need to trust the website but they need to protect consumer information

that need to monetize the data. with the on-line marketplace looking at profits will win out every time the administration and ftc recently issued reports on the need for industry to do more to protect data and give consumers control over how the information is used for pro have worked to bring consensus on voluntary action. we will discuss further at another hearing. the actions are to be commended for this respect. i have learned self regulation and is inherently one-sided.

we should take of strong consumer focus of legislation this year. i do not believe significant consensus exist yet on what the legislation and should look like but i will work with my colleagues. as chairman and will continue to work with the it ministrations and ftc represented here to push the industry to develop and it here to privacy protections

and continue to hold oversight hearings to make sure the trust of americans is being respected. i now call on the ranking member. >> they keep for holding another hearing. it is important to. eyes still remain skeptical for congress to pass privacy legislation or have the ftc to have new authority. it seems to me that they fully and newsstand what the consumer are -- privacy is depending on the application and or the general privacy

preferences from it and a consumer. it is important companies have maximum flexibility to work with their customers to ensure the needs and preferences are met to and it functions as consumers this -- expect. as pointed out they are currently a of promoting the services than what is offered by marketplace rivals. this is the sign of a competitive market. this, but to sinn sinn -- competition should be protected prick big to be threatened the innovation by shifting the incentives that is wag caution my colleagues to proceed.

companies in all sectors have a powerful interest with a relationship with their customers. the online space the incentive is stronger. leaving one provider for another three easy at the toll cost. the internet is where " competition is one click away" end quote. although worthy of consideration it is premature to discuss fix this sort authority if we down no to what extent the problem is exist. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

>> i call on the chairman of the subcommittee. senator john kerry. >> i appreciate it. i think the hearing can help. but i think the record is clear senator a lot of the questions you raised have been addressed and there has been a powerful showing with the ability to have a privacy standard as well as the need without affecting the free access. i am delighted the have the chair rather who carries the

privilege but to i am glad he is here representing the commerce department and has worked under to secretaries as have many of us. in his capacity they will set out to of the ftc with respect to the question, it is not an important both the congress department and the ftc together with most of the privacy experts have come to the conclusion we need a privacy law.

the distinction is the privacy experts the murrah the company knows about you. the more valuable you are. consenting or not prevent their collecting more than the information that you type. a lot of americans are not aware of that. they watch your behavior how long new linger. specific searches. they think they're searching privately the somebody is watching and tracking. you would not feel good if you had a private investigator looking at you

ask for it. you don't have privacy. they analyze and enhance the data then reach a conclusion. using that information the day the scientists create enormous wealth often producing innovative products and services for about with the consent of people who want to be a part of that sell what is the harm? without your knowledge or consent what about no limits to what could be collected with no right to access what has been collected about you. the more conservative

position should be to protect the individual, not the right of people to invade your space. if not properly secured. also their identity theft it could be used to categorize in ways you do not wish expos thing to reputation harm or unwanted targeting. one retailer may know that they have advertising based on medical status or ethnicity and ag and corresponding behavior can target in different ways that their populations could be targeted.

maybe you don't want to be. or the wi-fi collection the private communications including sensitive conversations could be captured exposing aspects to companies that are nobody's business. when informations and you will find a majority who have no fault of. >> but the writer should have the right to make that decision. most americans don't have any awareness there is no general law of privacy. when it is brought to their attention, they say they want to one.

built on the european standard is important to set our own and it is plus punitive -- punitive but been just as the delivering the protections. the united states normally waits for someone else to set the standard come of we should buy our own. we should they add up a blueprint we agree on a one approach. i a approached him one year-ago but it reflects the principles put forward in the analysis today. as well as the safe harbor where a application of code of conduct for the we're

very smart. they will consent to reasonable and useful collection particularly if they think it enhances the life experience. but the most important principle is the individual consumer has the right to make that decision. can we get there? is up to the committee. the bipartisan proposal is not the only way to approach this. we should compromise to reach the fair standard it -- we cannot afford another year of delay to put the american and into a default. those who are sensitive to our own interest.

that in the tuchman's it a huge but to have ample time for questions, let's start by the profits that -- preface of order with mr. leibowitz -- jon leibowitz the general counsel to the commerce related to senator kerry and then come back to you. okay? let's start with mr. jon leibowitz. senators come i appreciate

the testimony on consumer privacy. it commends the recent part of the bipartisan leadership you have shown on consumer privacy issues. most remarks conserve privacy policy and it said do not track. we'll describe the recent enforcement efforts. imagine a cash strapped college student and applies online for a loan and obtains it but also because her father suffers from depression so she wants to research symptoms and treatments. then in the mail she receives another loan offered from a payday lender. in the evening she spends

time relaxing by being of a social old network but now realizes she precedes adds for medication. could the lender have sold the information into the pale lenders? or the fact she researched the depression and be shared with potential employers? yen these exchanges of the operations of her without awareness. the answer is yes from quick responses to loan applications. and an easy way to keep up with friends and family. but the vast majority of americans have no knowledge they are purchasing financial, health, other personal information

information, lenders, but insurance companies, employers and just about everybody else. will consumers are unaware of the past amounts of data collected and sold and used. be at the commission and applied the internet innovation with the advertising ecosystem of providing free content. but we are also concerned some practices may adversely affect americans and their critical right to privacy. we have thought about this issue for more than a decade. we recently released the final privacy report saying what we should do to make sure the right remains robust and.

the short answer is consumers should have more choice and control. but first this is the irradiation that is privacy by design proffer the consumer's choice over how did it is collected. third, provide more transparency which is better expiration how the data is handled. the final report recommends congress consider enacting legislation as well as statutes that have data brokers and. >> it is easy to use and persistent to control the

information coming in across the website. your computer is a the best to the industry has made great strides with the dnt will exist but only how it is implemented. we're optimistic with the encouragement of this committee the do not track mechanism allow wayne them to collect their information with limited examples to prevent fraud. boeing back to the discussion earlier with senator kerrey and do not

track is run by industry. not government. enforcement remained the top priority. this week we announced a case against myspace alleging it used person a permission with advertisers after promising it would not. the order prohibits myspace from making any representation and requires it to go under a third-party audit. this dance to the proposition we will hold companies accountable for their privacy convince. we appreciate the leadership and look forward to working with the other stakeholders with privacy protection going forward. think you. >> cameron kerry. >> thank you

chairman, ranking member and members of the committee i am grateful to testify belt the blueprint for did their privacy. it is a framework to enhance privacy while fostering economic growth, job creation and exports for mayor can businesses. they have had the leader and added pfizer in developing it it thanking those at the witness table today. the explosion of the collection, storage, analysis coming digital information , new frontiers of knowledge and growth.

what is the market failure? we are added to pinpoint. >> but to be responsible stewards exceeds the abilities of moves that this will of seek out buyers slow to take a vantage of consumers trust and based on consumer privacy legislation. sustaining trust, business

and consumer interest converge. the understands the bill of rights. but security and also focused accountability project go it to fall for the principles of the force of law. we recommend to mechanisms to apply the principles. first is giving them a direct pc? >> reviving in good section five is currently framed. second authorizing the safe harbor -- safe harbor that

is how best to follow the privacy bill of rights them context? we then cc they carry out the blueprints to initiate the stakeholder driven process to develop codes of conduct. they are reviewing the recommendations of the process including your comments chairman rockefeller. >> you should be selecting a topic regarding the first meeting very soon. in then because of this committee and other members

to put privacy legislation into law. in america what we do is paramount to that company's but we cannot ignore the global reach of the internet. europe is then there process to hone its approach of their country's understand how we need the rules of the road. we have claire opportunity as obama's said to offer the world they dynamic model of how to provide strong privacy protection to enable ongoing innovation with technology. baseline privacy will ground has firmly. we can be the example for the world paving the way that are interoperable of

around the globe. leading by example encourages other countries to add flexibility and accountability with data privacy networks. this model promotes the free flow of them permission to help win i speak, i can but it is embedded in the constitution and the privacy laws and health records with a strong enforcement by the ftc and attorneys general. for defending our system. they want more and need more urban we what to send the

clear message to the world that the united states cares about privacy and will protect the privacy of consumers in all sectors. >> mr. chairman by aa appreciate you are here to. >> chairmen rock other-- rockefeller i a.m. july and wind jon leibowitz and cameron kerry. privacy is the important topic. but let me say my comments and the views expressed are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the commission. my tenure began april 4th. while privacy is an issue my

views from the perspective of a commissioner were just over one mr. poole. while i have read the report of was that the commission during its development i'm not met read it -- yet ready to commit myself. however i am happy to share my preliminary view is how we guard consumer privacy as well as where the commission should deploy resources. i firmly believe consumers and should have the tools through transparency and choices. with the ftc strong record of enforcements, fayyad of

brought more than they the securities cases recharged companies with failing to live up to promises against companies such as google and facebook that protect the privacy of more than 1 billion users worldwide. taebo and courage strong enforcement. life-support data security legislation that should promulgate regulations from unauthorized access. that is part of the current bill presented. i am is officially presented -- concerns about presenting in the face of technology. that led to since the enactment i will carefully

read consider the like to have certain aspects. companies build protection in to their everyday business practices to help minimize privacy breeches and should be considered best practice as they develop new products and services. i support the report's recognition there is no single best way for all circumstances. by a agree although it is not necessary because the collection and is consistent with the transaction or the relationship with the consumer.

congress gave the commission the tools to provide a strong the exact revocations aeronaut defined but we gave the privacy report. it is clear the legislation leaves those who are not currently challenge to. it gives me the opportunity to follow-up such as whether general policy and permission is needed provide will consult with any other stakeholder to gather the views for what possible solutions they see in the area of privacy. what harms are occurring now? how should harm be measured?

as my colleague noted, the commission has specifically advised congress with the alleged there others that subject more types. but they did not reject fundamental website read have the definition of year and i have reservations about the expansion. financial medical operation is protected under current law to reflect most expectations and in other areas they have a diverse use of the intimation that it is impossible -- important to not impinge on preferences.

if the consumer is given a clear notice there is no basis that the consumer cannot make the informed choice. what know about the technology effort to to provide greater transparency with their data of. in may also have an effect on competition for those entities that have information or those to encourage consolidation. the ftc should be sensitive to these as well. the technology sector is developing at lightning speed. wish to proceed cautiously to explore any new policy legislation and. i have concerns to keep up with the with the benefits

consumers have gained but without to the curtailing the success of the internet economy. thank you for allowing me to participate. this committee show strong leadership but privacy and i will look forward to working with you to make sure their privacy is protected. >> i will start. jon leibowitz the digital advertising alliance spent time developing its consumer guidelines. they'll go off her their concerns. but i know in spite of good intentions and you can see this so many

times, natural-gas come much telephone company, of whatever what never was never. sometimes the regulatory efforts to not end up they tried to regulate themselves out of profits. 1990's consumers forgetting bogus charges some should say the consumer should understand everything on their telephone bill if they can see the writing they are in for the and it is their responsibility. they came to congress at that time and told us they would take care of the problem.