>> i want to ask about sopa and what happened in congress and with a your forecast is moving forwards. i know that you were heavied involved in that and the problem piracy continues to be move forwards. so, really glad you are here jim, mpaa senator d.o.d., any ideas where we go next on sopa? >> it was a threshold event, i think in watching events how a bill becomes loss of course you look at the process, you had a unanimous vote out of the senate committee. the house had a similar situation, not quite as unanimous. but i think any of us will be hard pressed in the last four or five years we had that degree of

unanimous consent around a subject matter and that is to deal with foreign sites. we have had domestic legislation to deal with domestic sites had shut down some 300 or so, but the criminals learned quickly that they can get outside the shore s of the united states, then they are beyond the reach of the law and they are able to avoid the kind of efforts that have been made domestic i cadom. i have great respect for all that led the effort in the house, but i think that the legislation had issue s that needed to be addressed. but you do that. you have a bill introduced and then through an amendsment process, you get it to a workable thing. you had between eight and 10 million e-mails that came in.

you globalized an issue you would be hard pressed to finds 20 people that you are interested in the subject matter prior to that and then the opportunity for responding was almost eliminating entirely. but the issue does not away as you heard from the panelist s and others today, looking for sloogzs to this, i do not think that anything will happen, election year politics at any level and the idea of having another issue coming up like this is unwise. although i leave it up to the members of congress to decide that issue. my guess is that they will not try to move forward right now. there are efforts under way and we need to try to finds a solution to the issue my hope is that it requires a level of cooperation between the technology and content community. both need each other. for one to exist without the other is ridiculous on its face it seems to me and tickerly when

you consider the value to us in this country, we did not talk about the numbers today, in the context of it, and i realize they are not highly per suasive, but this industry is producing a lot of money. good pensions and good health care benefits. we bring back more revenueses to the united states than aerospace, agriculture or automatics. it's a product that the world enjoys even those that are not necessarily our friends around the world. given the choice between watching a product made by the film and television anywhere else in the world choose s the american product. you can have a high school diploma and have one or two years in training and have a

great job. now, again, those are not persuading statistics because again, people see it as a victimless crime. how much harm am i causing if i steal from a over paid business. people are not aware how many average people, watch the credicredit s at the end, the people operating the cameras are 98% of the employees in the business. the 2% that we read about and hear about represent fraction of the people effected in the industry. so, it's an important issue and my hope is that over this gap between now and next january, february or so, that people can come together around solutions for national legislation, memoiralize the ideas that will

allow us to move forward. it's the life blood of any country in any ability. in fact the internet efts would have been in deep trouble if you had that attitude about copyright 20 years ago with the ideas that gave birth to this industry would have been at risk. we need leadership in this issue and i hope we will get it in the coming weeks and month s whatevr you call this, do not call it sopa, think of a new name, given it's become a montra internationally. sorry about the length of the answer. >> other questions? >> thank you, first of all, i'm going to let you use an acronym that i coined. p two p is good. but what we are concerned about is p to p three p, since before the decision of which many of

of us were here and joined -- we have been looking in utah o trying -- looking in utah, we have been trying to protect against that. my view of -- seeing my members of my delegation that turned around was a well orchestrated internet based false information about what it did. we knew it was not perfect but the lies that were told online is what killed it. and then, a very well orchestrated campaign to label anybody in support of sopa, or pipa, who wrote op-eds in support of it, has people who were anti-free speech, who wanted to censor the internet, and my own kids came down on me

for being against free speech and against the internet. i'm looking right now by a major corporation who have representatives in the room with had their piracy and not liberty montra, as ags go forward, and i'm inclined to do so, go forwards to hold ips responsible for what is going on in some ways that we will face the same attacks that any ag who steps up and tries to do something will be called anti-internet, wantsing to c eventensor and bi brother, it's a powerful lobby. my question, as we move forwards, what is the plan or urge you to think of a plan to counter and to back us up when we go forward and stick our necks out and fry to surprise our responsibilities to protect

citizens and those who are he being, you know, were being victimized by that, to countser and match what i believe we will see again as we move forwards. >> i'll turn to rick and others, first of all, thank you, you wrote a very, i thought one of the best pieces written during the debate that you wrote in the op-ed piece in utah. so my thank s to you for doing so and one of the thing s that we will, first of all, understands, we have to be, and i think that rick cotton said it well, this is not exclusive. we allowed ourselves to be the opposition. again, given the general reputation, i say that respectfully, picking out the film and entertainment industry as the opposition. there was no mention of any of the industry s and long list of issue s that are subject to intellectual theft.

as long as it's a movie or film, how much harm is caused aside from the economic impacts we are talking about. it's important that we allow the discussion to go forward as we talk about consumers being harmed. identity fraud. last year there were 81 people that lost their lives because they utilized a phony product that was sold through the internet. they a at risk -- that information from their credit cards can cause them life long problems particularly if you are dealing with a foreign site that gets the information. that has to be done, we have to move to the social media space to answer the questions. we were not in that space at all, not being in there and content people, whatever it is,

have a lot to say and talk to people about what we produce, and why it's important and in the absence of that being part of the discussion, you leave yourself weak to what you went through with your own children. rick, you understand. >> i say two things quickly, really appreciate your support and those of many of the other attorneys general around the table on this issue. i agree with what you said and i think that the short answer that i would give is that the coalition that is supported the legislation included the u.s. chamber of commerce, it included the afl, cio and many of the individual sectors that the legislation imposed obligations on but it was larnlly a washington-based coalition the challenge, the two buckets that the senator justified, which is we need to broaden and deepen the coalition that is in

support, there need to be voices card across the country, it's partsly a education process and encouraging both the sector s of the economy and the worker s and the groups actually who get benefit from the us being a leader in technology and invention and creativity to speak up and have their voices haer haerds. and we need to responds in way that the campaign was run this time and be in a position to contradict claims that don't have a basis in truth. so, i think those are approximate -- those are the big challenges, being more effective in communicating. >> i appreciate that and i've been thinking through when it became this silicone valley

against hollywood are the millions artists, young struggling, the ones who are being injured on this. if i can get a plug, van stephenson has been working for us for 12 years now and he is a great -- >> he is not getting a pay raise. >> i'm sorry, if we can keep working with him, that would be great. >> he does a great, great job. he really z. >> join me in thanking our panel. well done. senator, thank you. a small ma men toe for you. >> i can accept gifts now too. >> just a few important annoume the council on dodd-frank following our adjournment here,

it will be in the longworth room on this floor, starting right now. the sage business meetsing will be in the roosevelt room at 4:00. you are all invited to the sage reception at 5:30 in the lobby level. tomorrow morning there will be an anti-trust breakfast meeting in the roosevelt room. acting attorney general for the department of justice will be there. the public planning session for all a ten -- for all attendees. see you tomorrow at the sage reception.

>> more live coverage, this time this hearing on the federal trade commission budget proposal. the fcc has requested $300 million, that is $11.5 million less than fiscal 20 12. the one commissioner to vote against the plan, his name is thomas rouche. >> i describe myself as the fiscal conservative. not my first stint in the ftc, i served as the drkter of the bureau of consumer protection, so i have an abiding interest in the agencies welfare and reputation. that said, i have been free to disagree with my democratic colleagues. and i have disagreed with them hopefully without being

disagreeable on a number of years over the last seven year s. these have included the agencies 2013 budgets submitted to this committee. and the president's policy decisions which are reflected in that budget. the areas of disagreement with my colleagues have included authorized generic s, which i know that you have abiding interest in as well, chairman emerson, since you have legislation pending on that subject. financial services enforcement needs, and case selection. particularly since we now share jurisdiction with the new cfpb over my dead body i might add. oil and gas price s. the staff's preliminary privacy

reports. i will answer your questions about my views on these or any other topic s, but i want to empty size that despite these areas of disagreement, i have never felt bullied by the chairman, or my colleagues to support or not support a position that i disagreed with and i consider the ftc to be the picture of a cleejlial agency. >> i appreciate your comments and in spite of what the national news media would lead you to believe, the congress has more coordination than what the public thinks. and we i think enjoy the disagreement but we can be

apprehends on the side and respect one another. so i'm pleased to hear that is the way it happens at the ftc as well. i am going to ask my first question about the consumer financial protection bureau and if memo of the understanding that you have. i vubsly i know that -- obviously i know that since it was over your dead body that the functions, some of the functions of the ftc would be merged with the cfpb, i'll ask process questions first. but, chairman liebowitz, i read the mou, explain to us, your interpretation of what part of ftc's jurisdiction is transferred to cfpb, how you all are working together and i also want to know that because of

that, and the fact that you all are working together and some of your jurisdiction was transferred, then, it seem s to me that you do not need as many resources as you have requested. >> that is a fair question, and that is part of commissioner rush's concern as well about the creation of the cfpb, as you know, we have a memorandum of understandsing we do it because we do not, we want to make sure that we are efficient. as you know, from the complaints that we get and the cases we brought, we brought more than 90 cases of fraud, bogus repair and a variety of other case s like that, it's a target rich environment. and so, we -- so from my

perspective, as long as we are not double teams companies and we are letting each other know which investigations we are doing, it's a good thing for consumers. we have set up six working groups, with the cfpb, and we meet with them regularly to make sure that we are not tripping over each other or stepping on each other's toes. >> how do you define fairly regularly? >> i would say we are talking to them at the staff level probably every week at least once and i talk to richard cordray or e-mail him probably every couple of weeks. now, on the resource issue, i would say this, over time, it might make sense to -- to -- i don't want to say keep authority, we still have the authority to go after predatory financial behavior. it may make sense to defer to

the cfpb, but they are a new agency, we have jurisdiction over nonbank financial institutions, they have jurisdiction over that plus banks, and so, i think they have their handzs full and as we kno, there's a fair amount of on uncertainty over the agency itself and over the recess appointment and so, while i think over time, it may be that we could not need the resources to bring these types of cases, i think this year, and for now, it's critically important that we do. again, what we are trying to do is shut down a lot of scammers that preying on the most vulnerable consumers. mr. roushe? >> this feeds into one of my principal concerns about the budget that has been submitted to you. first, in addition to 38 retirements, which we had this

last year. we lost no fewer than 21 ftes, to the new cfpb. so, there's supposed to be 59 fte open positions at the commission. second, however, each and every one of those empty position s left by the 59 ftes, has either been filled or it will befie fi period under the 2013 budget. third, the 59 slots will be augmented by another ten ftes under the budget request you are considering. so the result, aassuming the 59

slots had remained unfilled is an addition of 69 ftes. fourth, many of those ftes will be used to combat the so-called financial fraud cases despite the fact that we now share jurisdiction with the new cfpb. fifth. insofar as the testimony suggest s or indicate s or implies that there are other substantial savings that will be made, i would suggest to you most respectfully that it's penny wise and pound foolish and ma is the statement that i'm going make for the following reasons. first of all of course i think that the big ticket item s are

three-fold. the first is the 59 -- 69 ftes, additional ftes, the second is creation of a new miami office. that would stand in stark contrast to the anti-trust's edition proposal to -- ants trust's proposal to close four of its offices at the present time. beyond that it would require taxpayer funds not only now, but in the future indefinitely because i can guarantee you based on our experience from '73 to '75 than we will play havoc trying to do close those offices down the line, or that office down the line. third is the unprecedented proposal to give away the chairman has mentioned this, to

give away our headquarters building. which is federal government built exclusively for us to the largely privately endowed national gallery of arts. that will cost the taxpayers from $80 million to $300 million, depenning on where we move and whether it's a new building like the secs. you know, madam chairman, at least for a fiscal conservative like myself, i think that this congress or a large majority of the house at least, was enacted on the promise of being frugal. and to my way of thinking, it's time to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. i say that most respectfully. >> thank you very much.

mr. rush, and i don't disagree with you. let me just say briefly and then i'll leave it with regard to the headquarters building, that is a discussion with the authorizers and we do not have the ability to make those authorization s in an appropriations sub committee. i'll bring this up in another rounds of questions, i want to pursue with you the filling, both of you, the filling of the 59 and then adding ten ftes, particularly having sent the 21 over to cfpb. i also want to discuss with you all so many satellite offices, because it's not just you, it's the securities and trade commission, i believe we can more efficient with our funds as opposed to having body s be placed in other places with some exception, so, i do appreciate

that. -- both of your comments very, very much. i am curious though, particularly with you mr. rush, do you think, knowing that you are not crazy about the notion of the cfpb, it's here. but do you believe that your jurisdiction over nonbank financial institutions should have been transferred over to the cfpb in. >> good lord no. >> chairman? >> you know, i agree with commissioner rush. and i also think and we can come back to it in the next rounds, that if err with not transferring our jurisdiction, we out to stay active in the fields in the least until the cfpb can do the job. >> i believe that duplication of estimates is a waste of taxpayer dollars. i'll pass now. >> thank you, madam chair. first of all, commissioner i would like to congratulate you and your staff on putting forth a budget request that is nearly

$12 million less than your appropriation for fiscal year 2012. and that is probably the last time anyone will hear me that a cut, congratulate someone on a cut. we are having to do more with less and i preshts that you have 59 that to heart. can you describe however the steps the ftc is taking to increase efficiency and streamline your operations? >> well, you know, we try to do a lot of things because we all understand that we are leaving in an era of austerity now, one thing we are trying do is use i.t. or kmuputsers to do -- commuter s to do thing s that have been done by manual labor. and another part of human capital. commissioner rush mentioned the buy-outs that we have done for some of our retirement eligible employees. a way you save money, and

sometimes it's painful, to offer buy-outs among senior attorneys and bring in younger attorneys who are at a lower sort of pay level and i think thatprobably, as much as anything else, we are a lawyer driven agency, 65% of our budget is staff salaries is creating a culture of savings, so our on executive director ask said for ways we can save money to the entire staff of the ftc and we had 150 response s. we put restrictions on travel, we sends fewer people to meetings as we should and we got rid of our -- we got rid of our sadan at the agency, so we are working on it, and it's important. >> commissioner rush, would you like to comment on that? >> thank you, ranking member. the only thing i would say is i'm a reformed sinner in this

regard as well. and you should understand that. in the past i've represented -- i've supported an increase in the budget for the ftc as -- as well as the ftes but now is not the time to do some of tees things for three reasons, first, we are now in the midst of an austere time and the fed said that we will be until at least 2014. so it's not -- prosperity is not around the corner. secondly, we need every last dime that we can get ahold of in order to get out of the building at 601 new jersey, when the lease run s out which it will do at the end of the year no matter what. and