you needed the right kind of partnership between the smart government policies, limited and targeted way to address those barriers and that will unlock the private sector to do what it does best. >> i'll take that as a yes. mr. zindler, i think this is what the chairman was asking about. i think you spoke to it but i just want to specifically talk about the clean energy development administration or ceda. do you think that is a useful model as a way of helping get over the second valley of death? >> potentially it certainly has that as that opportunity. there is a short circuit in the market, as i tried to articulate, that basically there is not the right kind of money out there for this kind of task for large scale demonstration projects so whether it's ceda or maybe some other model or maybe you change the tax rules or whatever it is, that is a market disconnect that is sort of screaming out for some kind of solution. and i think there are a number of interesting ideas out there. that's certainly one of them. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> did you have any additional questions?

if not, we can conclude the hearing at this point. >> well, i don't want to, you know, put a crimp in your day. >> no, go right ahead. that's what my day's for. >> i wanted to ask about china and sometimes we help, the u.s. government helps u.s. companies come up with technologies and then when these companies go to do something in china, china insists on their, you know, their intellectual property being -- giving up their trade secrets in order to do business in china, and i think this violates basic free trade principles. senator webb has looked at this issue and i believe this committee ought to explore a solution to this problem. do either of you have any opinions on how funding agencies can better protect taxpayer funded technologies? >> i'll take a crack at that. that's a tough question, obviously. this sector, the u.s./china clean energy trade relationship is at a very interesting juncture.

in fact, as you may have seen last week, the department of commerce announced new fairly substantial tariffs on chinese goods, solar equipment imported into the united states, so there is some tension there and i'll tread carefully in my remarks on this. i think that to some degree, the chinese government made some of the most important decisions about clean energy three or four years ago when it did make it difficult for outside companies to compete for contracts there. and now essentially, and in the meantime, we saw a real scale-up

of domestic wind turbine manufacturing in china and really in particular for solar over that time. and they have become really world leaders. so on the one hand, as you think about the politics of this, i understand the concerns about creating jobs and protecting intellectual property. on the other, i do think it's important to note that in part because of that scale-up, the cost of solar, for instance, has never been cheaper than it's been and -- >> that actually undercut solyndra. that was part of the solyndra story, right? >> it was certainly part of the issue for solyndra is that

solyndra -- solyndra is a very interesting example of a company that was trying to look longer range about driving down costs and literally got caught up to some large degree by what was going on at that very moment, so the conventional sector for solar has simply scaled faster and prices have come down faster -- >> so in an odd way they were undercut, solyndra was actually undercut by the fact that the chinese spent so much in promoting their own solar industry to make it so much cheaper that they were undercut and that their long term viability became longer term. because they had a higher quality but more expensive product, right? >> what they were doing was looking further down the road and basically the future arrived

faster than i think they had anticipated. that happened for a number of reasons. it wasn't just the chinese that had scaled up. we've seen capacity come online in taiwan and other places as well. but the solar market has very rapidly expanded and frankly gotten a little ahead of itself in the last couple years and that's driven down prices very sharply. >> right. mr. jenkins, did you -- >> yeah. just one thing to add, i think the current markets today for advanced energy technologies are substantial but they are almost entirely government created markets. they're created by subsidies in europe and china and the united states or elsewhere. i think we have to keep our eye on the ultimate prize which are just the development of cost competitive advanced energy technologies that can scale a $5 trillion global energy market without subsidies. so the game i think in the long term is who can develop the technologies that are cost competitive enough to export to global markets at 90% plus of energy demand growth is coming from outside of the oecd countries in the emerging economies and those countries are going to be unable or unwilling to substantially subsidize the deployment of cleaner energy technologies. one thing we can focus on both

to drive competition, to enhance u.s. competition and to reduce the cost of taxpayer investments now is that the investments we level in creating these markets do have to continually drive down the costs of these technologies, support the right incentives for firms to continually innovate and if we do that right, i think we provide the right continuity over the medium term and the right policy incentives and markets, we can succeed in out-competing china. we can see firms in the united states take root that can deploy their technologies without subsidy and without the need for ongoing public support. >> okay. this is my last question, comment. what we're basically doing is fighting for the future. >> that's right. >> because what we're saying is that we know when these solar, wind, other renewables, other clean technologies, become price-effective and they will, and they can, and they have to,

that there is going to be an enormous world market and that if we don't do this now, we're not going to be part of it. is that correct? >> i think that's exactly correct. i think again we can look at the history of shale gas as a key example. we're not the only country in the world with large shale gas resources. china has even larger amounts of shale gas than we do. south africa, many countries in europe. but it was the united states that developed cost effective shale extraction technologies first and that wasn't because we were the only country with the oil and gas sector, either. it was because of the government partnership with that dynamic oil and gas sector that was able to develop those technologies. now the united states enjoys a massive new source of domestic energy, we have created tens of thousands of jobs in that sector, but if you go back and look, even in 2005 or 2006, not long ago, that sector was a tiny contributor to our national energy system and those technologies were still cost ineffective.

so you cross that tipping point and all of a sudden, you have a revolution in our american energy markets and we're exporting those technologies abroad, that expertise to china, now south africa and other countries to help them develop those resources. i think that's a parable for what we can and should do with other technologies. energy demand in the united states is vast so shale is great for expanding our energy supplies. we can't rest on those laurels. we should continue to develop a diverse source of ever cleaner energy technologies and those same kinds of policies are going to be key to doing that. as you said, winning the future. >> i don't think we can end on a better note. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you both very much. very useful testimony and we appreciate it. that will conclude our hearing. finishing up here with the

coming up tonight, a debate between the candidates running in wisconsin's gubernatorial recall election. watch this live tonight at 9:00 p.m. on c-span. this memorial day, three days of history. actors from hbo's band of brothers join easy company vets and the 101st hepron. >> what is it, bill? you're giving me everything to jump with. he said we're jumping in hard, ain't we?

i said, yeah. okay. said let me tell you something. how much you weigh. i said 138. pounds tall are you. i said 5'4" and a half. you got to put the half in there. i said because i am 5'4" and a half. the reason you got that we don't want to go looking for you in spain. >> also this weekend, sunday night at 9:30, woodrow wilson, teddy roosevelt, william taft, the legacy of the 1912 presidential election. a date which will live in infamy. tour the pearl harbor in the

national monument. three days of american history tv this holiday weekend on c-span 3. privacy online. the senate commerce committee looked into the issue yesterday, hearing testimony from federal trade commission chair john liebowitz. in the meantime, republican senator pat toomey was concerned that additional regulation might hurt growth. this runs 90 minutes. >> good morning and afternoon. and i apologize for being five minutes late. every day, tens of millions of americans go online to search for information. they want a shot. they want to pay their bills or they're accessing social networking.

to state the obvious, the internet has fundamentally transformed every aspect of our lives. what is less obvious is the level of information that is collected about us each time we visit a website or watch a video or send an e-mail or make a purchase. now, consumers have had no choice but to place an enormous amount of trust in the online world, trust that their information is safe, that it will be secure, and it will be used appropriately, whatever that means. but the incentive to misuse consumers' information is very great. a consumer's personal information is the currency, in fact, of the web. the value of this data has created untold riches for those who have successfully harnessed it. this is not necessarily bad as it enables an enormous amount of content to be accessed for free

and allows companies to offer a number of services for free. but unfettered collection of consumers aegon line data poses to me very significant risks. right now consumers have little or no choice in managing how their online information the collected and how it is used. whatever limited choices they do have are often too difficult to use and modeled by complicated, wordy privacy policies. it's, again, your classic health insurance comparison. tiny writing. protecting consumer privacy is critical for companies, and i understand that. people need to trust the web sites that they are visiting. but online companies are conflicted. they need to protect consumers' information, but they also need to be able to monetize their users' data. i am afraid that in the

hypercompetitive online marketplace the need to monetize consumers' data and profits will win out probably almost every time over privacy concerns. the administration and the federal trade commission have both recently issued reports on the need for industry to do more to protect consumer data and give consumers control over how their personal information is used. they have worked to bring about industry consensus on voluntary actions. this is an interesting subject which we'll discuss further at another hearing. the administration's and the industry's actions are to be commend in this respect. but i have learned over many years that self-regulation is inherently one-sided. in many industries, many times, in many eras, it's inherently one-sided, and that consumers' rights always seem to lose out

to the industry's needs. i believe consumers need strong legal protections. they need simple and easy-to-understand rules about how, what, and when their information can be collected and used. they need easy-to-understand privacy policies rather than pages of incomprehensible legalese. we should take up strong consumer-focused privacy legislation this year. i do not believe that significant consensus exists yet on what that legislation should look like, but i will continue to work with my colleagues on legislation. as chairman of this committee,ly continue to work with the administration and the ftc, both represented here, to push the industry to develop an adhered-to strong consumer privacy protects. i will continue to oversee hearings to make sure the trusting is people have placed in these companies is being respected. i call now on the ranking

member, my next-door neighbor. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding another hearing on the topic of privacy. it is a very important topic. as i have said in this committee in the past, i still remain skeptical of the need for congress to pass privacy legislation or, for that matter, for the ftc to have increased authority to enforce new privacy rules, regulations, or principles on the private sector. seems to me neither this committee, nor the ftc, nor the commerce department fully understand what consumers' expectations are when it comes to their online privacy. consumer expectations of privacy can vary based on the particular application they're using or by the general privacy preference of any given individual consumer. it's important that companies have maximum flexibility to work

with their customers to ensure their customers' needs and preferences are met and that the application of service functions as consumers expect. as the recent ftc report correctly points out, companies are already currently competing on privacy and are promoting services as having stronger privacy protects than what is being offered by marketplace rivals, for instance. this is a sign of a healthy, functioning, and competitive market. this type of competition is something that we should be encouraging. overly restrictive privacy rules and regulations handled down from washington may threaten this innovation by shifting the incentive to compliance over competition. i don't think anyone desires such a result, which is why i caution my colleagues and the administration to proceed with caution. proponents of federal privacy legislation and of granting the ftc authority to regulate online activity really should clearly demonstrate the market failure and consumer harm that they seek

to address. the benefits of online tracking and data collection are very clear. facebook is free. gmail is free. google maps is is free. there are thousands of mobile device applications that are free. it's often said that information is the currency of the internet. a detailed, cost-benefit analysis of a do not track regulation or other new privacy rules would better inform our discussion. but to my knowledge, one has not been completed. we need to fully understand the impact these proposals will have on the marketplace and the many online services consumers have come to expect for free or at a minimum cost. less information available is very likely to result in fewer free online services and an increase in pay walls. i think it's irresponsible for the federal government to require companies to radically alter a successful business model that's provided many

consumer benefits without knowing all the facts first. i also question whether specific consumer harms currently occurring in the marketplace is cannot be addressed under the ftc's current statutory authority. section 5 of the ftc grant -- the ftc act grants the commission broad authority to investigate unfair or deceptive acts or practice, and the commission has brought enforcement actions using this authority. in fact, the commission highlights a number of these enforcement actions in the beginning of its recently released report. when the commission sees what it believes to be unfair or deceptive practices, it has acted. just yesterday, it was reported that the ftc and myspace reached a privacy settlement that will subject the company to biannual privacy assessments for the next 20 years. in addition, google and facebook recently entered into consent decrees that subject the companies to outside audits for two decades. i have not heard a persuasive argument why the ftc needs greater authority. lastly, i find it interesting the commission seems concerned about consumer frustration in the private sector. consumer trust is very, very important.

but there's no one for whom it's more important than the company that's hoping to attract and maintain customers. so i think trust in the marketplace is something that the marketplace tends to sort out pretty well. companies in all sectors of the economy have a powerful interest in building a strong, trusting relationship with their customers. consumers don't trust company a, they quickly flee to company b. in the online space, this incentive is even stronger. the internet has made leaving one company or service provider for another very easy, can often be done at little or no cost. as one major online company likes to say, the internet is where, quote, competition is one click away, end quote. while this is an important topic and certainly worthy of our consideration, i think it's premature to discuss specific legislative fixes or increased ftc authority when we don't fully know whether or not and to what extent the problem exists. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, thank them for coming and thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much.

i call on the chairman of the subcommittee that works this, and that is senator john kerry. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i appreciate it. i certainly appreciate this hearing. and i think this hearing can help as a couple of prior hearings have. i think the record is already fairly clear, senator toomey, if i may say that a lot of the questions you've raised have actually been addressed in those hearings and i think there's been a pretty powerful showing with respect to both the ability to have a privacy standard as well as the need for the privacy standard without affecting those applications and the free access and all the other things you're talking about. and i think the record will reflect that. i'm delighted that we have the chair of the federal trade commission and one of the commissioners from the commission here with us today.

and obviously i'm delighted to welcome my own brother, who carries either the burden or privilege of being so. but i'm glad that he's here today representing the commerce department. he's been working on this under two different secretaries now, as have many of us here on the committee. so i know that in his capacity as the general counsel together with the chair, they are going to set out today so the final findings of both the commerce department and the federal trade commission with respect to this question. it is not unimportant, i think, that both the commerce department and the federal trade commission frankly together with most of the privacy experts in the country have all come to the conclusion that we need to have a privacy law with respect to providing protection to individuals in commerce. and i think that the distinction, senator toomey, is is that the privacy experts have all come to that conclusion. obviously, some of the companies have not and don't share it. and the reason for that is very simple.

in the information economy, the more that a company knows about you, the more valuable you are to them, whether you have consented to that or not. and they are collecting more than simply the information that you type in. and a lot of americans aren't necessarily aware of that. these companies watch your behavior. and they measure your behavior. how long you linger on a site, your specific searches. a lot of people think they're just going in and searching privately. somebody's watching you. somebody's tracking you. you know, you wouldn't feel particularly good if you had a private investigator trailing you through the mall, looking at every single receipt that you get and everything you peruse and look at and ask for. that's essentially what's happening here.

you don't have privacy. they analyze and enhance that data and then they reach a conclusion about you. using that information, these data scientists are creating enormous wealth, often producing innovative products, we agree, and services. but there's nothing to stop them from doing the creation of those products and services with the consent of people who want to be part of that or without necessarily the detail of those who do not. so what's the harm? senator toomey sort of asked the question today. what's the harm of what can happen to you without your knowledge, concept, or active participation, and where there are no limbs to what can be collected and where you have no right to access what has been collected about you? it seems to me the more conservative position here is frankly to protect the individual in america, not to protect the right of people to

invade your space without your knowing it. so if it's not properly secured, that information can actually harm you, number one, through identity theft. even if it is properly secured, it can be used to categorize you inaccurately or in ways that you don't wish to be categorized, exposing you to either reputational harm or to unwanted targeting. for example, by analyzing your buying habits, a retailer may know that you're pregnant before you even tell anyone. they begin to send you advertising based on medical status or on your ethnicity or on your age, and corresponding behavior can then be used to target you in different ways than other populations may be targeted. and maybe you don't want to be targeted or analyzed in that particular way. or as in the case of the google wi-fi collection, your private communications including sensitive conversations can be easily captured, exposing aspects of your life to companies that are simply nobody's business.

but when information collected about you is used to make your buying experience better or serve you better, you'll find a majority of the people have absolutely no problem consenting to that kind of use. but the collector ought to have the right to make that judgment, the value proposition with respect to the consumer. most americans don't have any awareness that there's no general law of privacy in commerce in the u.s. today governing these transactions. and when it's brought to their attention, they say they want one. our largest trading partners have such laws. build on the european standard. but i believe it's important for us to set our own standard, something that could, in fact,

be more flexible and more stakeholder driven and less punitive than what exists in europe today. but just as capable of delivering strong privacy protects. so in keeping with the spirit that the united states normally doesn't, you know, wait for someone else to set the standard and then borrow it, we ought to be setting our own standard. the final agency reports that have been issued recently that we ought to lay out a blueprint of privacy principles for legislation. senator john mccain and i have agreed on one approach, and i introduced that approach with him more than a year ago. it reflects each of the principles that are being put forward in the analyses today as well as the concept of a safe harbor for a flexible application of the code of conduct to different kinds of businesses. i think all of us know that consumers in the united states are very smart. they'll consent to reasonable and useful data collection and use practices, particularly if

they think it enhances their buying and life experience. but the most important principle we want to reinforce here is that the individual consumer has the right to make that decision. so can we get there? i think it's up to the members of this committee. the bipartisan proposal that senator mccain and i offered up, is, as i said, not the only way to approach this. we're ready to negotiate. and i think we ought to compromise in this effort to reach a fair standard. but we need to get down to that discussion because we really can't afford another year of delay which may in the end wind up putting america into a default position on this, which would be far less flexible, thoughtful, and sensitive to our own business interests. and i think that americans ought to know that congress believes that in the digital age every

individual american has a right to an expectation of privacy. i hope we can find that way forward, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator kerry. i want to proceed now to our witnesses, and we'll have ample time for questioning and others will be -- members will be coming and leaving. let's start by preference of order, would be to start with the honorable john leibowitz, chairman of the federal trade commission, then honorable -- i'm going to skip over you to the guy who's general counsel to the department of commerce, who is somehow related to senator kerry. and then come back to you as a cleanup. is that all right? >> sure. >> so let's start with chairman leibowitz.