matters. number three, i think we would probably hand off more to the states. i don't think, frankly, sequestration would be that bad a thing for us under these circumstances given the austerity that we're living in right now. having said that, probably because of my background as a trial lawyer, an antitrust trial lawyer, i don't think that the supreme court -- that matters are over until the supreme court has said they're really over. and so for that reason probably i am more'ing eager than my colleagues to follow on in administrative proceedings and with supreme court review. but having said that, in the whole foods case, i was able to persuade my colleagues that we ought to soldier on. but generally speak, i've not been able to do that.

and i would be remiss if i didn't say and emphasize that in all cases, however, i think i got a full and fair hearing from my colleagues and from the chairman. as i've said, for me, that's the kind of collegiality that really counts. >> one more thing, which is the chairman and i have talked about this a little bit. last year, the fees which companies pay when they're seeking a merger haven't been adjusted for inflation since 199 or maybe 2000. so if you are looking -- and the senate appropriations proposed this i think last year and there was something by the ways and means committee, because it originated in the house, if you modestly update or adjust the fees for inflation and then put a tier in of over $1 billion,

you could probably raise something like $800 million to a billion dollars over ten years. that would be divided between the antitrust division and the federal trade commission, but it might be a fairly painless way to have to -- that you might want to think about for raising a little more money. >> let me just weigh in here for a second. it's energy and commerce and judiciary committee -- >> right. >> -- authorizers issue which -- >> we would be happy if you decide to sort of help you out with -- to talk to our authorizers. >> well, it's never a bad idea to talk to authorizers. >> but i want to emphasize that we have been off target with respect to our fee estimates throughout. so i'm not sure that we ought to be making any promises that an increase in fees is the end of the game. >> well, i have no further questions. i want to thank you, and i want

to thank you especially for repeating and reminding us that you work hard at getting along and doing things in a joint way. and your comments that when people don't agree they still accept your comments fairly, that's very refreshing to us because we get different kinds of situations when we get folks from different parties or in adversarial positions in front of us. it can get a little heated at times. so we thank you and thank you for your service. >> thanks so much. >> and you'll get back to us on territories, online shopping and the jack benny thing. >> absolutely. >> we may be doing a lot of onsideline shopping around the holidays this year. i have a sneaking suspicion. sir? >> very briefly, again, because i did get answers to my questions about, again, the -- i guess you're preparing a letter to the attorneys general. that's the first question.

the second is, you'll get back to me if there is anything on the alcohol issue on the 21st amendment. >> absolutely. >> what recourse do people have if they are -- if they suspect that a domain name has been taken either -- maliciously? in other words, can i get a domain name right now and start putting stuff on there that, you know -- not that i would ever do that, joe, but could things like that happen? [ inaudible ] what recourses are there, and what ability do you have to deal with that? how limitd are you? >> it's funny you raise that because i was testifying a couple years ago when i was nonchair commissioner before the senate commerce committee, and apparently someone had -- someone had -- who had been associated with ted stevens' campaign had used it to set up a humorous site involving maria

cantwell, another member. at that time they were both members of the commerce committee. this was not humorous to maria cantwell or to ted stevens, by the way. i would say there's probably some recourse. let me get back to you on that. but the biggest problem is that most of the people who do this, they either can't be reached because, you know, they're in romania or in southeast asia and they're registering a domain name for $3, or even if they're an american registering a domain name for $3 with inaccurate information, they'll be hard to track down. then they registered it for a legitimate person and want some money for it. if we could -- i wasn't involved in this when they started the domain name -- the internet corporation for assigned names & numbers nu numbers. if i -- in retrospect, there are somethings we should have done

differently. and we're hoping that one of the areas where we have been involved -- just because we saw so many problems -- is trying to encourage reforms within the process. but i'll get back to you on your specific question. >> thanks. no more? many graves? >> i guess the fs the equal rights floated out there, and i know you spoke earlier about it. help our committee understand. is that something you see moving forward as a regulation or something coming out of the commission? or is that something you mentioned earlier industry regulated, or is that how you see cie it -- >> so -- it's a good question. not a straight black-and-white answer. the privacy bill of rights and the privacy proposals surrounding that have been

driven by or initiated by the department of commerce. and what they want to have is codes of conduct. this is actually -- we're very supportive of this -- codes of conduct for industries they would agree to about protecting privacy, and the ftc would do the enforcement role. we're an enforcement agency. that's much of what we do. we have supported the notion of do not track options so consumers can opt out of being tracked if they don't want to be tracked. the commerce department's initiative has legislation around it. i think we all understand this is not going to be a major legislative year. our initiative for do not track is purely voluntarily. it involves industry really stepping up to the plate and trying to give consumers an option. and then it involves some standard-setting organizations that want to set up standards for -- we're not regulating, to get to your bottom line question. >> so if someone chooses not to

participate in the standard, what would be the recourse? and then if somebody does choose to participate but they don't abide by their conduct that you just described, what would -- >> see, that goes to the heart of exactly what we're doing. if someone says i don't want to participate in the standard, i don't want to give consumers an option not to track, you know, i'm going -- when they come on, i'm going to say if you come on my site, we're going to track you, they're allowed to do that. we don't think it's the best practice. i don't think it encourages trust in the internet or more internet commerce. but that's, you know, what -- but we're not saying it's an enforcement violation in any way, shape, or er hd -- and i think this is what makes the industry driven do not track proposal so powerful, if a company says i am not going to track consumers if they opt out and then they engage in tracking, one, because there's an enforcement mechanism set up by the better business bureau, it can be enforced there.

right? and they can be penalized. enforcement mechanism with teeth. and two is if you make a commitment, i will honor your privacy, any company does, and they don't do that, it's enforceable by the federal trade commission. again, i, myself, probably wouldn't opt out of tracking because i sort of like getting targeted ads. and no one wants to in any way undermine the sort of free content and services on the internet that we get from advertising. but i just think from my perspective consumers have a choice. and what's really heartening to me is that most companies want to give them a choice. >> so is it common practice for a private group of businesses to come together and come up with their own rules of the road or codes of conduct and then the ftc regulate that and enforce that? >> we wouldn't regulate it. we would enforce it. >> enforce. >> and we don't do -- only when they want to. again, we might encourage them

to do it. but we don't have -- commissioner rouch and i were during dodd/frank both advocates for getting out of the magnusson/ross act, the kind of medieval rule making we were under that makes it difficult to do rule makings, and congress didn't give us that easier rule making authority. but so again, it's up to industry. but i think there are a lot of reasons why industry wants to do this. one, they don't think a lot of people would be opting out of tracking. two is they recognize the more trust you give consumers the more internet activity including commerce there might be. it's the right thing to do. even executives in technology companies are aware of tracking and they wonder sort of where is my information going sometimes? >> one more. is there another example of where industry has come together and developed rules of engagement and the ftc has enforced those rules that were developed outside of the

regulatory -- >> yeah. let me get back to you on that. early on there were lots of codes of conduct. i think we got away from them in part because for the most part, with a few exceptions, we thought our unfair practices authority works and we weren't in the business of regulating for the most part. here we don't feel like we're in the business of regulating but we're encouraged by what companies voluntarily want to do. >> this is a unique model that i have not heard of before where you have a private sector do this. >> that's because -- >> without the government. >> that's because, frankly, congressman, because it is a tautology. if it's truly voluntary, then it's not enforceable at the federal level by the ftc or by an act of congress.

on the other hand, if there's a federal legislation that makes it enforceable, it's not truly voluntary. now, why are these people interested in doing it? the chairman has offered you one explanation. i will offer you two other ones. number one, the carnegie mellon study that i referenced earlier has determined that you cannot -- most consumers cannot even access these do not track mechanisms. so that's one reason. and the second reason is because these big entrenched companies i'm concerned about -- that in terms of self-regulation that they will use self-regulation privacy as a tool, as a weapon, if you will, to preserve their positions and against entry by

smaller rivals. i'm concerned about that. >> commissioner, thank you. and i share similar concerns that whenever we allow the strong force of government to enforce, as was the term that was used here, that has not been ratified or approved by members of this body but only rules of engagement by a private sector, i think we should all be cautious of that. >> thanks, mr. graves. given the fact that most of the time voluntary turns into mandated at some point down the road, it does make me nervous at the same time. one question that i'd like -- it's not a question. one thing i'd like to ask you all to do, we all have record of questions for the record. we'd like to have those answered sooner rather than later. sometimes it's six months, but if you could do it in the next 30 days it would be great. secondly, on the fee structure, because i am concerned about what commissioner rousch has

said, that i'd like to have -- and i know what you have budgeted for fees. just for the last five years if you could give me a list of how much fees you have. >> i can give you that right now, actually, for the last ten years. >> just going to hand me a piece of paper? >> handle you a piece of paper. >> with that, thank you all so much for being here. it was fun having you, too, commissioner rousch. and i like having opposite party commissioners because i actually think that it's important to show that, while perhaps you don't agree on everything, you do work together. i don't know that that's true across the board in all agencies, but i'm thrilled that it is with you all and we want to thank you so much, both of you, for being here and for the great job you're doing and for the help that i know you're going to give us in trying to save money, because we all need to do that. thanks. >> thank you, madam chairman.

tomorrow is super tuesday, and republican presidential candidate rick santorum is spending the day in ohio. one of the bigger super tuesday states. he's going to be holding a campaign rally this evening in cuyahoga falls. you can watch live coverage about 6:45 p.m. eastern on c-span2. voters go to the polls in ten states tomorrow. 419 delegates are at stake. three states have caucuses, and seven states have primaries -- oklahoma, tennessee, georgia, ohio, virginia, vermont, and massachusetts. watch live coverage of the results on the c-span networks and also on c-span.org. and the american/israel public affairs committee conference is under way in washington. israeli prime minister benjamin

netanyahu will be there tonight along with house democratic leader nancy pelosi and senate republican leader mitch mcconnell, who's expected to deliver remarks on u.s. policy toward iran. we'll have that on c-span2 tonight starting at 9:30 eastern. i know in washington it's very popular to want to create a cybersecurity organization to oversee this. and i think that's just folly. >> the adversaries that we're dealing with today are more committed, better resourced, and becoming more sophisticated. so we talk about the advance persistent threat, i worry about that. >> how real is the threat? cybersecurity executives bill connor and robert dicks on how to handle the threats to government and business communications networks. "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. this is c-span3. with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on "american

history tv." get our schedules and see past programs at our websites. and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. the national governors association recently held its annual winter meeting in washington. and this session focused on how states can create an entrepreneurial environment for small businesses and economic growth. the group's economic development and commerce committee conducted this session. it's chaired by kansas governor sam brownback, runs about an hour and 20 minutes. >> welcome, everybody. my name is sam brownback. i'm chairing the economic development committee on commit growth for the nga. delighted to have all the governors here and the other participants as well. this is going to be i think an

outstanding forum and discussion on what we need to do on the key if not the key topic for a lot of us as governors, creating growth and jobs in our state. governor nixon and i are leading this. i'm the chair. he's is vice chair. i have to draw attention to how incredible this moment is for the two of us, if you'll pardon me a bit of regional rivalry. today in one hour the last game between ku and mu will take place. this is a border rivalry that goes back i believe 107 years, jay. we're going to whip you. he gets the mike next so, he can comment as much as -- >> jay decided to join a real conference. >> yeah, well, we have a real discussion about that, too. i think we've got a pretty good one as well. >> don't they play football up there? >> we've got a few teams that know how to play, a few teams that know how to play a little

basketball, too, and a few other sports. but they have decided to go another way, so we're going to have a nice rivalry game. that's why this meeting will end on time for sure so that we can make sure to watch it. i do have my jayhawk tie on that c-span could focus on if you would like here for a good jayhawk shot. we're going to be able to talk a lot about economic development here today, and it's going to be a good topic for us and a good hearing, and it's a key one. with that, i want to make sure that we move forward on a good clip and get a good sense from our participants here, the governors and also the people that are going to be testifying in front of this group today. want to introduce david parkhurst, the committee staff director and legal and legislative counsel. thank you for your work in guiding the committee. appreciate that. today's session is compliments -- or complements this morning's session that on

growing state economies initiative. as you learned this morning, the design of governor heineman's initiative is to guide governors with better policies to improve economic environment in their states and practical strategies, which i think is the key emphasis, designed to foster business growth and growing the economies. this afternoon we'll explore how as governors we can lead everies to create environments to help entrepreneurs thrive. one of our speakers will testify. achieve economic success. our nation's success and the global economy starts in the states. states foster and encourage innovation, support industry sector clusters and champion linkages between private firms, academic institutions, research labs, public sector. opportunities exist for dp governors to help attract our states and support our entrepreneur who is create innovative new technologies and systems. governors can lead the way and often do in creating the

entrepreneurial culture that we need in america. my state, we're focused on this and what we can do to create a better business environment. we're focusing on key economic assets in clusters that we have, implementing policies to help our businesses best take advantage of those regional assets and strengths, facilitating relationships between our universities and private research institutions, created a new office of the repe repealer the focus on repealing outdated, antiquated regulations, champion education and training and focusing on lower personal income taxes to create a better environment. while traditional statutory and regulatory tools are important, the pace of global competition and technological innovation often occurs faster than government can process. this doesn't mean the government plays no role in creating a healthy entrepreneurial climate for global success, but it invites states to examine lessons learned by others that

may help and help move us forward as individual states and as a country. our session today will offer us a chance to distill universal lessons from successful entrepreneurs, identify ways as governors as ceos can help their states to improve the competitive positions of their states and learn from successful entrepreneurs, academic researchers and others. something we got to do as a country. with that, i offer governor nixon for additional comments and then introduce our panelists. jay? >> thank you, governor brownback. and also thank the jayhawks for losing to us not only in football but basketball this year. for those folks on c-span, we will complete this in time. the c-span audience is such a crossover with the ncaa basketball audience, we wouldn't want to hurt the number of people watching that game. for those of you watching at home, you will have time to quickly switch to what you

really want to watch, college basketball rather than brownback and me talk about basketball. missouri is known as the show-me state. we can create jobs, small businesses and move the economy forward. we've focused on maintaining rigid fiscal discipline and proviting an environment businesses can grow. we've preserved our aaa credit rating. that gives businesses large and small the confidence to invest in our state. we're also investing in education, college scholarship, and worker training and making sure as far as businesses we're working with small businesses across our state, the real drivers of job growth in our communities. one of my first acts as governor was to establish a special loan program specifically targeted to help small businesses move forward. also our small businesses were invested in about $27 million to help entrepreneurs in high-tech and traditional industries turn their ideas into bricks, mortar, and jobs. we're also doing that with only seven scholarship players on the

university of missouri basketball team this year. efficient, effective use of scholarship dollars is what it takes to really deliver a winning program in the ncaa, i guess. with that, it's my job now to introduce the truex pers with us today. we have a panel of distinguished presenters today that will help inform and lead our discussion. amy wilkinson is an entrepreneurship's scholar with a joint appointment at the woodrow wilson international center and harvard university. her interest and expertise centers on how leaders must change in order to influence today's entrepreneurial age. she is writing a book forth coming from simon and shuster based on 250 interviews with high-impact entrepreneurs that will explain how innovation has altered traditional assumptions and will demonstrate how to harness this change. amy has a diverse private and public sector background. she is an entrepreneur having started and led a mexican art export company, an investment bank we are an mba from stanford university, amy worked for

mckenzie and company as a strategic consultant. amy also has public sector experience serving as a white house fellow and special assistant to the u.s. trade representative. amy will discuss key carc try trystitrys trysting trystics of high-impact entrepreneurs and offer practical policy solution. jeff wiedman is vice president of global business development for the procter & gamble company. he leads p&g's team of technology entrepreneurs to identify and deliver partnerships that drive innovation and create value across p&g and around the world. jeff's team manages mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, equity investments, outsourcing, technology and trademark lice e licensing and p&g's connect and develop open innovation efforts. jeff has also led development of the first ever comprehensive agreements between p&g and the public university systems of ohio and michigan to stream linl how academia and business work

together to drive breakthrough innovations and local business creation. his team formed similar agreements with government research institutes, academic entity, and entrepreneurs around the world. jeff will talk about the p&g open innovation efforts, and i believe present some results or yentsed case studies. let's begin. amy, we look forward to your comments. >> thank you for that introduction, and thank you to the governors for focusing on this. i would like to start with a sentiment that is circulating among all of my entrepreneurial friends just this week. it goes like this -- dear optimist, pessimist, and realist, while you were arguing about the glass of water, i drank it. signed -- the opportunist. this is very much the mantra and the mind-set of entrepreneurs.

if we can flip forward on this presentation. as mentioned this morning and as mentioned just now, really to create an ecosystem of entrepreneurship you want high-impact entrepreneurs. you want the groups of people who will not only start companies but scale companies. so it's absolutely fantastic to have one- and two-person businesses, but in order to create jobs and change cultures at the state level, certainly, you want people to scale those companies to a significant size. so the facts, the data here, are that 1% of young companies age three to five years old really create more than 10% of net new jobs. that's an annual number. the data also show that in the last three decades in the united states that firms less than five years old have created all the