domestic base as well and the military is a major consumer and has a major interest in, for example, renewables and with targets to increase the amount of renewable energy that is sourced for both national security and cost reasons. i think that that program is a very important one that has to be considered with respect to support of u.s. industrial base. >> all right. mr. prestowitz? >> yes. i recently drove over the new -- the oakland bay bridge in california, which is still being built. and, you know, the main spans of the bridge are being made in china and the reason for that is because initially chinese had a very low bid on the steel and

fabrication of the main spans. it turns out they are way behind schedule and way overcost and california's not only not saving any money but also not generating the jobs it might have generated had it actually procured the bridge in the u.s. >> senator murkowski, go right ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this kind of follows on to the chairman's question. i think we recognize that oftentimes, if we have a buy america requirement, that that may add to the cost. i appreciate you noting that sensitivity, that we've got to balance that. another area where we may be adding to cost is when we put in place federal requirements or mandates for production of renewable fuels, whether it's through federal or state renewable energy standards,

clean energy standards. the president has proposed a new federal mandate for clean energy. the ces, the chairman has been working on legislation. but i think we recognize that in an effort to comply with these requirements, sometimes those -- the question that the utilities will turn to will be american made. other times it will not be american-made. we have tensions between the goal of environmental improvement on the one hand and then job creation here in this country on the other hand. is this a situation where ultimately we're going to be able to figure this out, we really are able to have our cake and eat it, too, or will we invariably be dealing with the situation where we have to prioritize one other the other? it's either going to be more affordable energy but maybe we compromise on whether it's built here in america with jobs in

america or a tradeoff with environmental aspect? do you see us getting to a point where it really is u.s. jobs? it really is a win when it comes to reduced emissions? and truly being able to have it all? do we get to that point? or are we constantly in this point of tension and prior tie zags of one over the other? >> i think we're constantly in this tension. unless the u.s., without subsidies, which of course costs money and raises the effective cost of the clean energy, is the superior provider across the whole range of whatever clean energy technologies we're using at the time, which is very, very unlikely, then somebody else is going to be making something more affordably than what we are. however they are doing it. so then we have this choice.

do we want the very heavily subsidized solar panels that are cheaper and provide us with affordable clean energy or say they subsidize those things and cost american jobs and we don't want to do that? it's not an easy choice. i mean that, unless the u.s. private sector alone -- because if you spend government money, that counts as the cost of energy -- is beats everybody else, some foreign technology is going to be useful for helping our environment and providing affordable clean energy. we don't make it here. so there's just no way to escape this. it's a tough choice and we're stuck with it. >> go down here, mr. wu. >> thank you. i would respectfully disagree with that. i don't think it's a stark choice. the idea -- you know, energy is a very localized resource.

it's about energy security. it's located in one location which if it's providing energy to the united states, it has to be located in the united states. therefore, it can generate jobs for maintenance, for installation, for the ongoing operation of the plant in many, many years and we know that a lot of the jobs economic benefits of solar and wind is generated with where it is located, which is the maintenance of the wind farm, insulation of solar and none of it will be manufactured. all of it will be manufactured in the u.s. and none of it comes from china. there's a little more knew wants as opposed to one or the other. it all comes from one location or has to be based in another location. thank you. >> mr. wolff? >> i think one of the purposes of government backing and joint research and development and

strategy, including trade policy and other policies, is to drive down the costs of whatever we're trying to effect. in semiconductors, the -- we did get an agreement with japan not to sell below average cost of production by company. the net result was that korea and taiwan came on stream in memory chips and the united states remained in that kind of technology and micron technology with no continuing trade relief. that's gone 15 to 20 years ago. but micron technology is one of the most competitive companies in the world out of boise, idaho, and bought facilities in japan because the japanese market was totally open. so i think that the net result has to be not only to have technologies and continue to have developed here but to drive down a learning curve and we've

been very successful at that in a number of areas. the sematech is going to achieve that as well. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i appreciate the comments from the witnesses and the time they've given the committee this morning. >> thank you. let me just ask another question or two. senator franken has sent us words that he's anxious to ask a few questions and he's on his way back from the capitol. so let me ask a question or two while he's on his way. i guess one obvious question is, if a semiconductor or sematech-like entity is created with regard to takes or any of the other clean energy tech sors, how does that translate into us actually manufacturing those products here? i mean, why -- frankly, my

impression is that we don't have enough u.s. firms to make a sematech like we'd have to have a more global organization and if we did, why would that manufacturing not be performed elsewhere? mr. holladay? >> yes. when you create this type of hub, it creates a catalyst. it brings in the commitment suppliers. it grows new companies. it gives companies the opportunity -- it gives you business advantages that don't exist anywhere else in the world potentially unless like it brings the industry in. they know that it's going to be

a huge market. so it and creates a catalyst and this production infrastructure that does not exist at most national labs. >> senator franken, i advised folks that i was filibustering until you returned. >> oh, go ahead. >> no. i've asked my questions. we're now anxious to hear what questions you have. thanks. >> well, thank you, mr. wu, mr. prestowitz. i'd like to give you an opportunity to respond to some of dr. scissors' testimony

because it strikes me that some of the language that he was using, china's reliance on coal and its lack of energy efficiency improvement or compared to the united states, that they are a function of its growing economy and i think that without that context, that testimony was kind of -- that it just needed that context because otherwise it's kind of meaningless and i just want to have you put it in the context of while china was expanding its economy and double digit and in 2007 and 2008 and less energy so

can you comment on that? >> i think you're right. in fact i think. the chinese, it seems to me, are actually to be admired in a way in this. i'm just trying to maintain the high growth, the 8, 9, 10% growth rate and that, for them, has been very energy intensive and the worst kind of energy is it kind of coal and they've got the worst kind of oil and if you travel to china you're traveling

in a total haze and everybody has a cough and the chinese realizes that that is not good. it's precisely because of that that they put such emphasis on trying to develop alternative sources. and they've been catholic about the alternative sources, looking at all possibilities. and so i think the fact that china's emissions are worse than ours and trend worse than ours doesn't take away from the significance, importance in their commitment to alternative energies. and so then the question becomes, well, in the alternative energy field, are they performing -- are they doing dumb things? are they investing in the wrong technologies? are they doing smarter things?

and they are probably overinvesting because the incentives to invest have been made very attractive. essentially, the party has told regional banks to lend. this is like the old days in japan where the banks lend and so they lend. and -- but that then gets to this question of, okay, maybe they are overinvesting and maybe we wouldn't do it that way but then that begins to impact us and then you get to the question of, are these technologies, put aside the coal and so forth, are the technologies that the chinese are pursing and again i want to emphasize, it's not just china. japan, korea, singapore, denmark, germany, all of these guys are in the game. >> right. >> and so are those technologies silly? we should forget about them and

just concentrate on fracking in the u.s.? or are those things that could be important for the u.s.? and i guess they are important for the u.s. i believe they are long term. then we need to have a strategy to maintain viability, technologically and commercially. >> mr. wu, am i goi -- and am i get more than five minutes here? >> you can take whatever time you like. >> thank you. >> certainly. i think all of the metrics are true. the emissions have grown, energy efficiency or intensity has gotten worse. over 25% come from the industry, heavy industry, which is in manufacturing, which is very intensive in terms of energy consumption. so i think it's good that you point out, senator, that the context of this, which is we're looking at sort of the massive

economic -- economic growth and also energy use growth. and also i think as mr. prestowitz said earlier, the effort is also important as well. if this investment in clean energy or deployment in clean energy were not to take place, what would it be? well, i would say probably right now it has so far not made as much difference as perhaps the chinese government had hoped. the massive wind deployment in china is quite a bit lower than what we see in the united states or in europe. if you look at the recent five-year plans and -- >> is that the amount of wind or the use of the wind energy that's created? because it sounds like some of it is being not put to use. >> yeah. it's both. it's the efficiency of the ones that are operating and the total amount, the total percent of the ones installed or working. so you have three that are working and the other quarter

that are not turning. the efficiency is lot lower. if you look at the recent five-year plans and the idea is to turn that around, to increase the technology, increase the efficiency and i think a lot of the expertise has to come from ultimately european engineers, which is going to china and being hired by chinese companies in very large numbers to help turn us around and do weapon want to emulate the massive scale that we see in china and that's higher efficiency and i think that is probably the most important question we should consider which is why i brought up the idea of parody and

perhaps that's one metric that we should be thinking about. >> senator, can i make one point of context for your context? >> absolutely. >> thank you. i appreciate that. from 1998 to 2002, china was growing fine and their coal use wa shrinking. so it's not just that they are growing and using more. they are growing in a certain way that's using a lot more energy and a lot more kinds of energy and that is swamping the other things that they are also trying to do. so that's probably more refined way of saying i accept your correction what i should have said in my introduction. >> mr. wolff, or ambassador wolff? >> if i could add just one element. and that would be, it would be great if china had 10 times the amount of clean energy that they have now. when a state in the u.s. adopts a clean energy standard, it really isn't doing it because

trade considerations. however, what the chinese have done is, as mr. wu. has just testified, they have not deployed the best windmills in the world being the best wind turbines, that come from a danish company, general electric, a u.s. company. they've kept us all out and they buy the cheapest turbines but not cheapest in terms of productivity in terms of generating electricity on a sustainable basis over a significant amount of time. so there -- i wouldn't, as a metric -- i'm not concerned with their use of deploysiing a grea deal of renewables. my only concern is that we breathe the same air around the world and it would be nice if they had more clean energy. but we do care about being kept

out of their market and we do care about them depressing our production here, our industry that can produce this equipment. >> by flooding or just by keeping us out or both? >> both. >> okay. you mentioned clean energy standards and a state adopting that. minnesota at the time the highest renewable standard for utilities in the country. it was 25 by 25 is the goal. xl energy, our largest utility was charged to going to 35, i believe and they are ahead of the goal of achieving it. and there are different ways to go at this, but it seems to me and the chairman has produced a clean energy standard piece of legislation that adopting a national clean energy standard

would be something that would incentivize the creation of clean energy and renewable. i'd like to have a renewable energy standard within the clean energy standard. something i would incentivize these industries. does anyone disagree with that, dr. scissors? >> why did you think it would be me? you actually touched on where i would disagree with it. we move from clean to renewable and i'm going to say that i would want -- if you impose a standard like that, to invent incentivize, the broader it is, the more chance you have for the industry to pick the right technology path not to be bound to what we think today is the good renewable energy and the

productive renewable energy and the one that we're using ten years from now. >> but there are a lot of renewable energy. >> right. and i agree there are clean energies that some people would not count as renewable. if the goal is purely to be clean, then let's just be clean. we are not in danger -- if the goal, we're worried about running out of something, then we have to change the standards. without -- my advice to the congress first would be, be as broad and as nonspecific -- >> your issue with me is -- >> the slipping of that definition, where the narrower the definition becomes, the worst the outcome is because we push people to a smaller and smaller range of choices. >> in minnesota we did a renewable and it's worked out really well in many, many ways. we have manufacturers in minnesota creating solar panels. we have very good things

happening. and actually it promotes diversity, which is what you were talking about. not tieing ourselves to -- if you call nuclear clean energy and you call natural gas clean energy and you call clean coal clean energy, we can get clean energy standard without going to any renewables whatsoever and i think that if we're going to create diversity -- which i think is what you are talking about -- let a thousand energy flowers bloom, i think that putting some renewable in there is a good idea and, dr. scissors, you did say we shouldn't be subsidizing the industry. before i had to leave, with what mr. prestowitz said is that very

often there isn't like this -- i any what you said, there isn't just a straight line where you start developing a technology and it starts here and then you employee people like that. it seems like i think what dr. -- mr. prestowitz is saying is that there's a fallow period in terms of job creation and then it ticks up. sematech, it sounds like it started and then it worked and took off. how many people were employed by the internet? just the people at darpa. how many people are employed by the internet now? gee. a lot of people. so it seems like -- i mean, how many people were employed by the

space industry when, you know, our rockets -- when i was a kid, our first rockets went -- bump and then -- remember those? well, we're coming to you by c-span. the cable satellite public affairs network. this is telecommunications. that was started by the government. but that didn't create a lot of jobs at the beginning. no one knew exactly what that would yield. but all of our telecommunications, all of our gps, everything, comes from that. so this idea that these are not creating jobs right now, these industries will create -- our clean energy technology has to create jobs. i believe it will create millions and millions and millions of jobs in the future

and the idea that just because it's not creating jobs now, we subsidize so many jobs in this industry, it's hard to think of one that didn't enjoy a government subsidy. you know, the erie canal sort of brought the midwest to europe so it could ship our agriculture products to europe. that was a government investment. so this idea that -- you know, we shouldn't choose winners or losers and we shouldn't subsidize industries that have the potential to employ millions and millions of people and to

better our lives, look at the nuclear industry. where would that be without the manhattan project? where would that be without the tennessee valley authority? where would that be? so i think we have to be very careful when we look back at our actual history and i've heard some of my colleagues on the other side, not today, of course, say that this should all be free enterprise. there's no role for the government in this stuff. there's been a role for the government in this stuff. well, i know that sounded like a speech, not a question. but i was kind of wrapping up. >> most questions around here sound like that. let me thank the panel.

this was very useful testimony, a very useful hearing. i appreciate it very much and that will conclude our hearing. c-span's congressional directory will show the contact information, district maps, and committee assignments. order online for $12.95 plus shipping and handling at c-span.org/shop. coming up on friday's washington journal, the federal

reserve has published a report showing falling household numbers in the u.s. we'll discuss it with joseph gagnon. and macw perry of the census bureau and patrick phillips of the urban land institute and hubert humphrey on the objectives of the new regulatory agency. washington journal begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. tune in to c-span 3 for the faith and freedom coalition conference. it's the largest get out to vote effort featuring evangelicals, conservatives, and tea partiers. gingrich and mitch mcconnell and glenn beck and many others. that's live at 9:00 a.m. friday

on c-span 3. >> this is c-span 3, with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week. and american history tv, get our schedules and see past programs at our websites. and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. next, defense secretary leon panetta said automatic defense budget cuts set for next year would be a disaster and would mean reductions in health care for veterans. this hearing is about two hours.