>> i do, mr. chairman. a couple follow-ups, one on iran sanctions, and then the second on the issue of reserves that i mentioned in my opening. so let me start with the sanctions. and this is directed to you, mr. diwan. dealing with the potential additional impact of sanctions. we know that the europeans have agreed in principle to ban the imports. but reading from your testimony, it seems that neither italy nor greece will comply at least to the extent that would have been expected. and given your point that you've got india, you've got south korea, turkey, all increasing imports combined with what we know about the strong demand from china, what do you think the practical effects of these

new sanctions will be? >> italy and spain will have to comply with the sanction by july 1st. the question is would they do much between now and then to try to diversify their social supply? they have long-term contracts. i think it's not very easy unless the iranians decide to embargo them. the problems are specific for each country -- which refinery gets what from there and there's long-term commercial relations. but it's likely that over the course of the year by the end of the year, they will not be allowed. they won't be able to import as much as they are right now. so we believe that they will have to decrease their supply by around 400,000 combined. the question is, are there other countries willing to pick up that slack from iran and in a way just shift the barrels as ambassador jones said. when you look at the countries which are really potential clients here, turkey can increase a little bit, and the question is how much will the u.s. face the sanctions. it's unlikely any country in asia will take more iranian crude. and the question is really how much india and china are willing

to become more dependent on iran as a source of supply. we don't believe, actually, that china will be very aggressive in increasing its imports of iranian barrels because it will make them more dependent and 1ru8 vulnerable to a potential disruption of iranian barrels. and they have somehow indicated that they're likely to keep the percentage of imports from iran stable which is around 10% of their crude imports. their crude imports are rising. so that 10% means a little bit more barrels than the year before, but it's not significant. the question is really india. but the volume we're talking about, 400,000 to 500,000 per

day from iran which do not have a place to go in europe, it's unlikely they can absorb that much. in a way, iran will have difficult to be able to replace these markets. and we believe it's more likely actually that we'll have to shut down some production or at least have floating storage for some of that production before they shut it down. >> then following on that, can you discuss the ways that iran could possibly circumvent the current sanctions both in terms of financial payments or physical delivery, then? >> well, they need a client who's willing to circumvent the financial sanction. and the way to do it is to deposit local currencies into a local bank that the iranians can draw from what they need to import back into iran. i think they'll have real difficulty to go through the international financial system. it limits, again, which countries have the capability and the ability to do that. >> so really, it's going to be incumbent on all those that are

adhering to the sanctions. some pretty robust monitoring and some enforcement there. i would imagine. mr. -- dr. gruenspecht, i wanted to follow up with regards to the eia's lower natural gas reserve estimates. indicated that they've dropped precipitously 40%, as i recall. do you expect that this lowering of the estimates may possibly discourage further exploration? is this going to have any impact one way or another? >> i would say not. again, whether the u.s. has 100 years of total recoverable resource at current rates or 90 years of total recoverable resources estimated at current rates. i just don't think it has much of an effect. i think the thing that would affect development would be the view of companies on the ground

as to how much it costs them to drill a well and what they can recover by drilling the well. and the price so they care about the quantity they can recover by drilling a well. what it costs them to drill a well and what they think the price is going to be. that's really what they're focused on. you know, whether we have 90 years of total recoverable resource or 100 years. >> i would agree with that. 40% reduction is noticeable. but as you put it in those context -- let me ask, then, how much of the eia reserve estimate, then, is actually driven by the production data that's out there? >> again, i would say that usgs is the primary agency in the united states government that does resource estimates. we do the work on reserves primarily. resources is a larger concept.

the usgs had not done a marcellus estimate in a long time. they had a very what we consider to be a very low estimate, one that we couldn't use. so we made up or developed our own. made up is a bad word. >> bad word. >> strike that from the record. and then after we did that, usgs came out with an updated marcellus estimate which was the 84 trillion cubic feet compared to their prior estimate. the 84 trillion cubic feet was significantly lower than the number that we had developed internally. you know, we're obviously sad that when they came out, we would update our work based on the usgs work. we did try to do that.e ain? >> i think this is a really tough area. i think there's too much emphasis put on that number, no matter whose number it is.

i think that as we gain more and more experience with actual drilling, the numbers will always tend to evolve on total recoverable resource. and again, i don't think it's that material for the 25-year horizon that i think we have been looking at in our projections long term that the iea looks at. in fact, we have more production and lower natural gas prices in this outlook than we had in the previous one. and that really reflects the drilling costs and the productivity. >> i think this is an important part of what it is that we're talking about and understanding what's going on. again, the president's state of the union that he gave last week, he, again, repeats the fact that -- i shouldn't say it's a fact. the statement that this country only has 2% of the world oes

oil. well, when we're talking about reserves versus resources and recoverable, we all -- you all know at this table that the number can be all over the board here. and it's how we define it. and i think sometimes it's a pretty loose definition that would lead people in this country to believe that we really don't have much of a recoverable resource. so it's important that we use the right terminology and try to be as accurate as we can, recognizing that we're dealing with a very fluid assessment again as our technologies and our capabilities expand. did you want to finish up? >> no. >> okay. no, i appreciate that. mr. chairman, that's all that i have. thank you. >> thank you. let me ask one other line of questions. dr. gruenspecht, your testimony,

in discussing the world or the international energy outlook, you say renewable energy is projected to be the fastest grow ing source of primary energy over the next 25 years. the renewable share of total energy use increases, in your projection, from 10% in 2008 to 15% in 2035. do you also have in your report an analysis of what those trends would be with regard to renewable energy in the united states? >> yes, particularly in our annual energy outlook, there's a lot of information on renewable energy. again, it's very fast growing for two reasons. one, in the transportation sector, you have the mandates for the biofuels, which even though we don't believe that the target at 2022 would actually be met.

that certainly is driving renewables in that sector. and we have a lot of renewables in the electricity sector. the share from renewables i think grows from, like, 10% of generation to 16% of generation. so that's a pretty big increase. generation is going up. although not too fast. we have renewables being pretty fast growing in the united states. on the electricity side, it's mostly driven by the state renewable portfolio standards. there's also some interaction between the transportation side because the plants that produce cellulosic biofuels, those plants will throw off some. extra electricity. so there's a lot going on there. it's a very interesting story. >> master jones, did you -- does the analysis that your

agency has made, is it consistent with this as far as renewable energy being the fastest growing source of primary energy over the next 25 years? >> well, it's certainly growing very rapidly, yes. i was just checking my testimony. according to the world energy outlook, the share of nonhydrorenewables, primarily wind and solar in power generation rises from 3% in 2009 to 15% in 2035. and hydro, which is a major source of generation, maintains its share at 15%. so overall, we're saying all would be about 30% of world power generation by 2035. >> okay. all right. i think this has all been very useful testimony. we appreciate you all being here. and we will try to stay in touch with you as these trends change. thank you very much. >> thank you.

for more resources in the presidential race use c-span's campaign 2012 websites to watch video of the candidates on the campaign trail, see what the candidates have said on issues important to you and read the latest from candidates and reporters and people like you at

cspan.org/campaign2012. the u.s. house voted in december to change the 1988 law restricting the release of customers' video rental history without their consent. the senate judiciary subcommittee heard about the issue from the general counsel of netflix, online privacy advocates and scholars. this is about an hour and 30 minutes. >> this hearing will come to order. it's my pleasure to well you come you to the third hearing on the subcommittee of privacy, technology and the law. now before we start, i just want to applaud the supreme court for its decision in the jones case. it was, i believe, the right result, but it was also call to action to congress because while law enforcement now needs a warrant to track your location, all of the companies that get your location information almost every day, your smartphone company, your in-car navigation

company and even the apps on your phone are still in most cases free to give out your location whomever they want as long as it isn't the government. i have a bill to fix that, and i think we need to take action on it right away. but today's hearing is -- will focus on the video privacy protection act. a powerful privacy law that was written and passed by chairman leahy and grassley. i want to use this hearing to make sure that everyone knows what the video privacy protection act is and how it protects our privacy and our civil liberties. i want to look at how we might update the video privacy protection act and i want to look at a specific bill to amend the law that was just passed in

the house. 25 years ago, judge robert bork was before the full senate judiciary committee as a nominee to the supreme court. during that hearing, a local reporter ask judge bork's video store for a record of the movies he had watched. there was no law against it, so the video store gave him the records and the reporter wrote a story about them. the senate judiciary committee was split on judge bork's nomination but it was unanimous in its outrage over what hat happened. there wasn't anything particularly memorable about judge bork's movie rentals. in fact, they consisted primarily of mysteries and caper films.

but that wasn't the point. the movies we choose to watch are our business and nobody else's. soon after this, senator leahy and senator grassley introduced the video privacy protection act. the bill was reported out of the committee unanimously and passed through the senate and the house on voice votes. there has been renewed interest in the video privacy protection act in recent months and i think that is great. but i've seen a lot of people talking about the law like it was some kind of relic. something that is so outdated that it doesn't make sense -- any sense anymore. so i want to take a moment to explain in simple terms what this law does for consumers. thanks to the video privacy protection act, your video company can't tell other people what you are watching unless you give them permission to do that.

now when chairman leahy and senator grassley wrote the law, they were really smart about it, if i might say. they didn't just say that a video company has to at some point get you to sign some form that says i am okay with you telling people what i watch. no, they said that every time a video company wants to tell people what you watch, they have to check with you first. and that's an important right because you probably don't care if people know that you watch some summer blockbuster. but if you are suddenly having trouble with your marriage and you are trying to get help, you might not want your friends and relatives to find out that you've been watching videos about marriage counseling or divorce. i also think that parents of a young child may want to watch documentaries about autism or developmental disabilities without broadcasting that to the world. this can be really sensitive stuff. and that's why the video privacy

protection act is so important. it gives you the right to tell your video company what can be shared and what cannot. the video privacy protection act also protects your privacy against the government. wants to get your viewing records, it has to get a warrant. a grand jury subpoena. or a court order. this came up in one famous case where a local police department thought that the 1979 movie "the tin drum" was obscene. now mind you this was a movie about what happened in nazi germany just before world war ii. it won an oscar for best foreign film, but the police department went out and seized a list of everyone who had the movie and then drove around confiscating every copy. and in that case, the aclu chapter used the video privacy protection act to stop that. and so without objection, i will add to the record a letter from the american civil liberties union that stresses that this is

a civil liberties law, too, not just a consumer protection law. the video privacy protection act also makes sure that video companies don't keep information about what you've watched after that information is no longer needed. this protects that information from getting lost, stolen or hacked. finally, the law gives people the right to have their day in court to defend their rights of if a video company or the government violates these rights. so the video privacy protection act is a really important law for consumer privacy and for civil liberties. but things do change in a quarter century, and i'm calling this hearing to see if we can update the law so that it can protect our privacy for another 25 years. one way we need to update this law is to make sure that it is keeping up with technology.

it used to be that if you wanted to watch a video you had to go to the video store or then wait for it in the mail after that. mail after that, now you can stream it directly to your computer in seconds. streaming is the future of video, but no judge has ever decided whether or not the video privacy protection act covers streaming video companies. i think the law does clear new technologies like stray ies lik because it does not cover audio video tape, it covers quote, similar materials. but i can see a judge looking at this and saying it does not cover streaming. so i don't want to leave the future of skrvideo privacy up t judge. if we are updating this i think we need to confirm that it

covers video streaming technology. i know that the courts are split about whether or not people have the right to enforce data retention. that might need to be clarified as well. those are jut two ideas, i'm sure the witnesses will have other suggestions, my goal is to lay the groundwork for a fair and comprehensive update for the entirety of this law. before i close, i want to touch on a recently passed house bill that would modify one aspect of the privacy act. it lets the company ask for your consent, just once up front to disclose the videos you once instead of asking for consent on a case by case basis. netflix has stronged supported this bill and explained it will make them easier to integrate

themselves into social media sites like facebook. they are here today, i'm happy to say. i have reservations, it looks like the bill will undo the ability for a consumer to give permission on a case by case consent, and i think case by case consent is a really good thing. it's a good thing that people can easily tell their video company, sure, go ahead, tell people i watched the god father but don't tell them i watched yoga for health, depression and gastrointestinal problems. >> that a real film?

>> yes it is and it's a good film. i am worried that this bill will make these changes without confirming that streaming is covered or doing anything else to strengthen the law for consumers. finally i want to know how the bill will effect the protection protections against government snooping about our video records. but i'm here to listen and learn more about it. and it a hearing on all proposals to update the video privacy protection act, not just hr 24.71. we have two great panels for that, before i introduce them, you want me to go to the chairman first? >> we have senator coleburn here -- >> i will yield to you.

>> no, i will yield, and i will wait until after he testified and of course, i'll follow the rest of you. >> then i'll ranking memory. senator coburn for his opening remarks. thank you, senator. >> mr. chairman, thank you, i believe the video privacy act has become out dated given all the new technology that is out there and i would just note that you, right now, can share your music preferences through spotify by signing up one time, you can share your book prese e preferences by signing up one time and you can share your video programs with hulu by signing up one time. i think the chairman of the sub committee makes some good points and i'm anxious to hear

congressman watt and his thoughts on this. i did have a chance to talk to your ranking member yesterday and hear his input in it and i look forward to the input, thank you, mr. thank you, to the ran member. i think we will go to our first witness and that is what the chairman would like, the chairman gets. our first witness is the honorable melvin l watt, distinguished representative of the 12th district. he serves to house committee. prior to his election to the house of representatives, representative watt practiced civil rights law for more than two decades and received h ed h

from yale and his bs from the university of north carolina, representative watt, welcome and the floor is all yours. >> thank you, chairman franken, and all the members of the sub committee. i'm truly honored tounavy to ad committee about the amendments proposed in hr 24.71 to the video privacy protection act, and consumer privacy in this rapidly evolving digital age. while i'm the ranking member of the sub committee, the views i express are my individual views and i do not speak for the committee or the sub committee. i believe there are countless reasons on oppose hr 24.71, which relate both to what the

bill does and what it not do and how it fits into the broader debate on how best to protect individual privacy on the vulnerable online environment. it's particularly timely that the sub committee holds this hearing today. although online privacy has been at the forefront of discussion for the past few years it has been a recent flurry of intense discussion that has made this hearing timely. business leaders, consumer advocates and state and local elected representatives and members from branch of the federal government have weighed in on a variety of concerns about the absence of a approach to safeguard individual information in the growing online environment. attention has appropriately intensified as two internet

giants, facebook and google, have come under scrutiny for their data uses policies and practices. likewise, netflix the main proponent of this bill has had more of it's fair share of regulatory complaints and consumer lawsuits yard to the handling of uer information. in the coming weeks, both the ftc and department of commerce are expected to issue long anticipated final reports on online privacy policy based on a series of round table discussions with relevant stakeholders and following up on their initial studies in 2010. senators kerry and mccain in the senate and cliff stearns in the house last year introduced legislation designed to prescribe standards for the collection, storage, use, retention and dissemination of

user's personally identifiable information and these bills generated debate more generally in the halls of congress. this this sub committee also held hearings to address the security of sensitive health records and personal privacy on mobile devices. and last week, in deciding whether gps tracking violates a criminal defendant's fourth amendment right against unreasonable search and seizer a majority of the justices acknowledged the challenges we confront as a society in determining the so-called new normal for privacy expectations in the digital age. against this thbackdrop i'l direct the rest of my comments to the bill that passed the house under the suspension of the rules. while i may not always