of death where we have the investment by the government but to commercialize it. and that seems to me to be what the loan program is about. >> that's correct. i think it's been mischaracterized inappropriately as the government being a venture capitalist. they deal with smaller amounts of money, at an earlier stage. the valley of debt goes to beginning to employ a commercial scale where a large investment of capital is needed and and then authorize -- a lot of them authorize, especially from the end of 2008 and beyond the correct markets froze.

this is why many countries have some sort of finance go bank of their own to allow their industries to grow. china has allowed a credit line in one year of $34 billion in renewable energy, that kind of thing. germany, england, netherlands, they all have this these types of programs. >> aren't they simply looking at the future and not the far future but the near future in terms of the competitive world global environment in terms of these technologies because we know where they are going. >> yes, this is why they are

doing this. they want their industries and their countries to be advantage relative to other countries that, you know, if all of the countries don't have any sort of government financing in any country, that would be one thing. if a large country is doing this, we should ask ourselves in the united states, what should we be doing? >> so we want to be competitive in these technologies, which are clearly going to be an enormous part of our economy and of the world economy and the world energy economy. right? >> right. >> and kind of not -- kind of ignoring that to me seems almost willful in not understanding where the world is going. i don't mean to be harsh. but would you agree with me? >> i would phrase it slightly differently. if you look at a way of financing as a way of stimulating private sector

investment, which is what we ultimately want to do a. loan program such as the one that we were administering, most people would agree was stimulating private sector investment at a 10 to 1 ratio. this is a good thing and that the losses expected from this investment are far less, we think, and al lee son also reaffirms this, than what was authorized. >> right. >> so in the aggregate -- while no one wants a failure, in the aggregate it's been very good at stimulating investment and success. >> and my time has run out but i'm now the chairman. so i yield to my time. solyndra, we must keep in mind, was only 3.3% of the entire 1705 program. and, look, there are risks. we had one senator and if the

risk is manageable for these companies that they are lending money to, we shouldn't be putting tax dollars at risk. they said if the risk isn't manageable, we shouldn't be putting tax dollars at risk. so, in other words, we should never put tax dollars at risk, according to my colleague. now, he has signed on to all of the above. he has said these for all of the above. so i would -- you know, i would suggest that anyone for all of the above. so i would caution them when they say the president is not opening every square mile of the

continental shelf to offshore drilling, that the criticism that is he being a hypocrite because he signed on to all of the above. they should be a little bit careful in that regard. okay. you said china is doing 36 billion? >> they have offered lines of credit to -- as i understand it, $34 billion in lines of credit to renewable or the clean energy sector. >> okay. i think it is absolutely crucial for all kinds of reasons that we invest in clean and renewable energy for obvious reasons, for economic reasons, for climate reasons and i also -- when i

hear about the $50 light bulb and the work given for that technology, i think of what laptops were when the first laptop came out i mean, essentially we're talking about mainframes, what the cost of the mainframe was, now compared to what everybody can get a laptop gets a laptop. that's what that is about, right? that $50 light bulb, oh, are you expecting every american to put, you know, spend $2,000 a year on light bulbs or whatever that question was strikes me as just disingenuous or either that or not understanding what the purpose of developing that

technology is. so let's assume the latter, can we? can you explain again by the $50 light bulb and the places where it's already being used and already spending money, that technology. >> sure, the l.e.d.s, because they last so long, 10, 20,000 hours, if you're in a place which leaves these bulbs on a long time, an exit sign, an emergency commit sign -- >> uh-huh. >> -- sometimes in office buildings they are left on for eight, ten hours and there are very high ceilings and so you would have to hire someone with a crane to go up and change that light bulb, traffic lights, another good example. they are on all the time. in those instances already know that switching out i can des sense light bucks for l.e.d.s makes commercial sense today.

the idea of the light bulb contest was to provide for a goal going further down to get a light bulb that eventually miles an hours can afford. and, you know, no one expects to pay $60 for a light bulb. and quite candidly, if you're -- you fill your house with light bulbs like that, given that they last that long, they should be part of your will. >> well, i think we'll end on that. i just wish that when we -- when we do these hearings that we did them with the purpose of getting the most understanding of what we're doing both from a broad level and as i asked mr. alison, a very specific thing about the loan subsidies, i think that is

the best use for these hearings and i thank you, mr. secretary, for the tremendous work that you are doing. >> and thank you. our goal is to get that bulb to $5,000 light bulb that lasts for 5,000 hours or even 10,000 hour us. >> and for street lights it's -- that should go beyond certain neighborhoods because for safety it can reduce crime. >> right. >> >> there's all kinds of reasons for that. mr. secretary, thank you. i assume that the record will stay open for -- i'm making this up now -- a week. but the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you.

garments made of homespunning cloth would be much more rough-textured, much less fine than the kinds of goods that they could import from

great britain. but by wearing this homespun cloth, women were vividly displaying their sentiments. >> rosemarie talking about the revolutionary war part of american history tv on c-span 3. our system is fundamentally undemocratic in a number of ways. one of the ways is closed primaries. so in half the states in the country, 40% of all the voters can't participate in the primaries. and so they have no say in who gets nominated. and as a result we get more and more extreme candidates on both ends of the spectrum. >> the swing vote, the most powerful electorate block in the u.s. are independent voters and they've decided every election

since world war ii. also this weekend, on booktv, they turn the network into the extension of the republican party. and mark levin's "the unmaking of america." booktv, every weekend on c-span 2. >> i was quite a radical as a young person and i was the one that thought we should overcome and not a way of gaining civil rights and i thought more confrontation was needed. >> economic professor, columnist, walter williams, on being a radical. >> i believe that being a radical is any person who believes in personal liberty and individual freedom and limited

government. that makes you a radical and i've always been a person who believed that people should not interfere with me. i should be able to do my own thing without -- so long as i don't violate the rights of other people. >> more with walter williams on c-span's q and a. >> now, a senate finance committee hearing on trade relations with russia. the committee discussed proposals to repeal an amendment passed in 1975 to put pressure on countries with nonmarket or communist economies by restricting trade with the u.s. this part of the hearing is an hour and ten minutes. >> katherine the great once said, there is nothing so difficult as to escape from that which is essentially agreeable.

russia joining the world trade organization presents a lucrative opportunity for the united states economy american jobs. we can all you must all embrace rather than escape this opportunity. russia is the largest economy currently outside the wto. it is the sixth largest economy in the world. to allow american businesses, workers, businesses, ranchers to see the opportunity that wto presents, congress must act. we must pass permanent, normal trade relations or pntr to access the growing russia market. if the united states passes the pntr with russia, u.s. exports to russia are expected to double within five years. if congress doesn't pass pntr, russia will join the wto any way and u.s. exporters will lose out to the chinese and european competitors.

these competitors will expand the one side of the agreement that benefits the businesses and requires them to give up nothing in return. unlike a free trade agreement, the united states will not further open its market to russia. we will not make any other changes to our trade loss. it's a one-way street. russia, on the other hand, will lower its tariffs, its markets to u.s. service providers gain access to telecommunications, banking, and other key markets. u.s. meat producers will secure the russia market including a beef quota of 60,000 metric tons. and the united states will get new tools for our toolbox to hold russia accountable to its obligations. these include binding legal enforcement and transparency

measures. but in order for u.s. businesses and workers to benefit from russia joining the wto, congress must pass pntr and repeal the jackson denies normal trade to communist countries unless the president determines that there is free immigration of the citizens. congress originally passed the law in response to the soviet union restrictions. jackson served its purpose and helped millions of jews immigrate freely but it's now a relic of the past. every president, regardless of the party, has waived the requirements for russia for the past 20 years. when i traveled to russia last month, i met with russian and american business leaders, including ron pollac who is also here with us today and i worked with activists to improve

democracy, human rights and corruption in the country and i met with leaders of the jewish community. the message for all of these activists was clear. the united states should repeal jackson and pass russia pntr. in fact, earlier this last week, human rights activists called on congress to repeal. i'm entering both letters into the record. one letter states that it only hinders the interaction of the economies and the peoples of the two countries and worsens the human rights situation in russia, end quote. repealing jackson-vanick explain

that it's a very useful anti-propaganda tool. as they stated, provides a tool to depict the united states as hostile to russia using outdated and cold war tools to undermine russia's international competitiveness. repealing jackson-vanick opens the u.s. to competition and to ideas and transparency. these activists have all raised serious questions about russia's human rights and democracy record. i share these questions. but like the act visits, i believe that pntr should not be in question. we owe it to american businesses, ranchers, and farmers working to increase exports to the growing russian market. we owe it to u.s. workers whose jobs depend on those exports and we owe it to the russian activists who are asking for our help in their fight for democracy. so let's embrace this opportunity for our economy and for american jobs.

in the spirit of katherine the great, let us move forward with that which we can all agree. let's work together to pass russia pntr. senator kyle? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think that i understand the message this hearing is intended to convey. american businesses want access to russian markets, we should repeal jackson-vanick without delay and conditions, it's a slam dunk but it isn't a slam dunk. let's stipulate that american businesses and farmers and ranchers should be able to sell products to russia and that free trade is important and beneficial to the united states. we still need to determine whether america is getting a good deal through russia's wto exception, whether more should be done to protect our interests. for example, russia has never ratified the bilateral investment treaty that the senate ratified years ago. that treaty would prevent

appropriating business and emit a big problem in russia. this is a very basic economic right that which is which is also not covered by the agreements and i submit the favored nation status to immigration. while immigration may no longer be an issue, the rule of law is every bit as relevant today as it is decades ago. . particularly since some of the most egregious cases of citizens exercising their economic krigts.

several of us had joined the senator in co-sponsoring legislation to send a clear message to those who commit violations of civil rights that they would not access the fiscal networks of united states. the letter to the editor, march 15. when the u.n.'s ambassador to russia michael mcfull suggests that there's no -- its business environment, he's simply denying reality. when two parties enter into a contract, it essential that both parties operate in faith. there is scant evidence that the russian government operates in good faith. there's disregard for human

rights and government sanctioned anti-americanism. monetary to the administration's -- in recent months, it has continued to sell arms to assaad's regime. this is not a government that can be trusted to uphold its international commitments or give a fair shake to businesses, and looking only at the wto comments. on intellectual property rights, russia remains on the u.s. trade representatives special 301 watch list for violations. what makes us think it will -- yes we should have access to a wto dispute settlement process.

what has that gotten us in our relationship to china. 23 years ago -- uk str reports to congress annually on congress compliance with wto comitments, the most aren't report is 127 pages long, filled with problems. the u.s. has used the formal dispute settlement process in only a handful of cases, even in rare cases that we get justice, it's not speedy justice. despite all the structures of the wto china cheats and continues to get away with it. if this is what we get from china which ranks 75th on the corruption index, what can we expect from russia which ranks a

dismal 143rd on the same list. china was not granted without condition and without delay. it takes only a couple -- the bill congress passed had only six subtitles dealing with the relationships. it's simply unreasonable to believe that pntr can be exte extended to russia without a more thorough examination of the issues, so, yes, we should have free trade, yes, russia should become part of the -- mr. chairman, i hope this is not our last hearing on this subject. >> thank you very much. now we'll turn to our witnesses, first we have mr. samuel allen who is the chairman and ceo of deer and company.

not only ago i visited one of the plant operations just outside of moscow and was very impressed with the people and the products that you're selling to russians and helping russian agriculture and i very much appreciate that opportunity. next we have mr. ron paulette, good to see you again, i talked to you over there in moscow. next mr. wattie taylor. wattie is one of our guys, he's from montana, he's president of the montana stock growth association, second generation family rancher from kirby, montana. thank you for joining us. next we have mr. paul williams, president and chairman of the board, the proposal of authors and publishers.

thank you very much, sir hatchet sends its special regards to you, he could not be here today, but he wanted me to tell you how much he appreciates working with you in various matters, it's meant a lot to him, but he deeply regrets. >> appreciate it, he's been very kind. >> and al larsen, chairman of the conspiracy international usa. a joint meeting of the direction of the transparency of russia in moscow. very compelling story to tell why she's back in russia and didn't stay over in brussels. but thank you all very much for coming today and the usual practice i'm sure you're aware is to have you submit your statements for the record and speak about five minutes and urge you to be just very direct, forthcoming, candid, tell it like it is. mr. allen, you're first.

>> thank you, chairman backus. senator kyle, distinguished members of the committee, my name is sam allen, chairman and ceo of john deere and company. thank you for allows to provide -- u.s. business community. granting pntr is crucial for u.s. manufacturers, service providers and agricultural producers to receive the full benefits of russia's wto accession. it is essential to enable us to compete on a level playing field for russian customs. the reasons are clear, first pntr will assure equal treatment for u.s. companies doing business in russia. russia as committed attention on reported agricultural equipment from 15% to 5%. however it is likely that russia would not extend the lower

tariff rates to u.s.-made products until it's granted untr. u.s. companies like john deere would be at a competitive disadvantage relative to our foreign competitors, and we would have no recourse to the wto -- many of the products we sell in russia utilize components closely connected to jobs in our facilities in the american midwest. second, pntr will strengthen commercial ties between the two countries. pntr will -- ajude indication process for trade disputes and also will promote transparency. third granting pntr will directly benefit u.s. workers, manufacturers, service providers and agricultural promoters helping to maintain good jobs here in the united states. russia's large and growing

economy, coupled with pntr. russia is already one of the world's largest markets with nearly $2 trillion economy. john deere has had a presence in russia for over 100 years. this has greatly expanded in recent years with the building of two factories just outside of moscow. these facilities use components produced and exported from john deere facilities in iowa, illinois, north dakota and other state to produce agriculture, forrestry and -- this activity directly affects jobs in eight deere factors. we recently announced a $70 million investment to expand our russian capabili f