other countries. the idea was to create incentives so people would make the conversions and that builds enough of our infrastructure. a lot of fuel stations don't have natural gas fueling stations. host: isn't that stimulus? guest: it's investing in something but it's a good investment. host: but that's a stimulus. guest: it's different than the stimulus bill that came out, that was government crobs, that was shovel 46 ready paving projects, that wasn't a long-term transition. what the

we have to look at what they are doing. the justice department is buying the muffins. all of those things should cause grave concern. we should be working on that together. that is where people are concerned. this is one of the elements. people are saying not to stop the programs. when congress said we're not going to do earmarks, they became political. some projects are very good. there were other elements that are not being done care to they

become another source of the earmarks ta? when they have $10 billion worth of other loans. we want strong oversight. we want to make sure they're doing what they're supposed to.

do you know why it was an in tysons investment? >> i do not want to pretend i am a solar engineer. it. that their project would be less ay they wouldthe wak handle it. it was the longer going to be a cost competitive market. >> why would a company purposely make junk panel's tax can you speak to that? >> i do not think they were trying. the question becomes are be investing in its attacks why invest in something that no one will buy. is there something that is for the good of the nation moving

forward? this is one area of question. >> she is a republican in tennessee. guest: this was a big donate your. he had access to the white house and warm bucket. they lay down their money. you give them money. with the justice department going in there, they will redact everything that has his fingerprints on it. what changed was when he was inaugurated. it did not let the democrats distract you from what the economy is doing. this is our money. we are fed up with it. >> i do not know what people's motives are. cts ine to follow the fa

this case. it is a matter of seeing what all these people know. what are they following? if some was withholding information, they will speak to themselves. it does put some political intrigue. our job is to get to the bottom of this. >> vancouver, washington. >> can you hear me? >> we can. >> thank you for c-span. when i was in iraq, i served with a fighter wing out of willow grove. on the other like, i see all this display in politics. when i was in iraq, i watched money getting wasted left to right.

i did not see anybody going after anybody. this led to a lot of american casualties. they're getting electrocuted and killed. we had an unemployment rate of about 80%. >> he brings up a complaint. let's all close up the capital and go home. it is a matter of how we will do this right spirit it is viable a

-- how will we do this right. is it a viable? congress will investigate those things. we caught many of those contractors. many have not made preparations on that. more things will come out over time. i hope this continues. >> he heads up of the government reform committee. he said he will launch an investigation into other countries. we are talking about this. >> it is good from the standpoint. this is not the only one. this is jurisdiction such as the

fda commerce and other committees have their jurisdiction as well. this all comes to the point. it helps promote jobs and growth. we ought to be doing it right. i did not care who is in the white house. we ought to be doing it. my hope is that they would all come together and clean this up. this is what we want to see change. >> how much money do we see on this total? >> i forget what that is. we authorized it. there is about 9.7 billion. >> i appreciate the work you're doing. i'm from the great state of

pennsylvania. i also have a question for you. i am going to go back to what one from washington just shaid. i want someone going after this money in iraq also. we're looking at this. i think my taxpayer dollars are much more lost in iraq than with this investment year. i want someone really looking at this. i really want disturbing over every rock. >> great point. thank you again for your service. this is something, you talked about the house armed services these to look at this.

we have to constantly look at these things. it is important. we cannot be cavalier about it. but look at where the government can save money, much is looking back. this is something i have been fighting for years. it is designed in a way that it will continue to raise money unless we retool it. they set up a contract or a plan and not save it. we know it is better than the devil we do not know. we ought to be making major changes.

how many homeowners cannot be there. >> i reflect back on the " that john f. kennedy said. it was until he got this. the t.a.r.p. funds he is talking about. it would lot of different directions. some banks were forced to take it. they had to give that back. this is our concern.

in some places it is much better for government to work with the markets. coming sure there is no fraud and abuse taking place. government does have some importance. when we start saying and investing in things that will not last, that is the concern. let's got to the programs as a valuable. >> i just have one simple question. why this $500 million sell more important than the 1200 million dollars loss in iraq? >> they're all important. some of the issues with regard

to the ones, let's thought diminish that. it is a lot of money. it is a lot of people. there are a lot of different programs at the time. and let's not say because it is only that it is not worth investing. it is. clean up the process. we do not want to this be earmarked for people misleading information. that is why we will have the ceo's in front of us. host: go ahead. caller: i will make this quick. i am active online. the talk right now is that a lot of people are really angry about this, to put it mildly.

what do you think about what people are saying th? >> it will guide the direction of where we go. we will see. caller: i like to commend you for this. if you could explain why the democratic members keep defending this. he was eating his sandwich. if you could explain.

host: we did have henry waxman on monday. he said in the case of solyndra, the committee should be looking into this. guest: it is a matter if we're going to do this, i cannot be some is pet project. for the sake of the taxpayers, i want to give this money back. host: the energy and commerce committee will hear from the executives. they will be their in person on friday. they will invoke the fifth. guest: the american taxpayers deserve that. they deserve to get their money back. host: are you talking to them about changing their mind? guest: i am sure discussions are taking place. >> tonight, president obama speaks to the un general

assembly in new york. then google chairman eric schmidt addresses antitrust accusations at a senate hearing. the house debate a temporary spending measure to fund the federal government for the next to a video months. into for the next two months. >> the president obama said that the israeli-palestinian conflict must be resolved through direct negotiations. on friday, a boss -- abbas this said to apply. netanyahu will address the assembly on friday. assembly on friday. >>

ladies and gentlemen, i like to talk to you about a subject that is at the heart. war and conflict have been with us since the beginning of civilization. the advance of modern weapons need that to death on a staggering scale. this killing compels of the founders. it is on averting that.

it would seek to send conflict while addressing its cost. no american did more to pursue this objective then president franklin roosevelt. as he said that one of the very first meetings on the founding of the united nations "we have got to make not merely peace but a piece that will last -- peace that will last." the men and women who built this new that peace was more than war. a lasting peace for nations and for individuals depends on a sense of justice and opportunity. of dignity and freedom. it depends on struggle and

sacrifice. on compromise and on a sense of common humanity. one delegate to the san francisco conference that led to the creation of the united nations put it well "many people had talked as if all that has to be done to get peace was to say loudly and frequently that we loved it and we hated war." no matter how much we love peace and hate war we cannot avoid having war brought upon this if there are convulsions and other parts of the world. -- in other parts of the world. did the fact is peace is hard. our people demand it. over nearly seven decades, even

as the united nations helped avert a third world war, we still live in one start by conflict. it is plagued by poverty. even as we proclaim our war -- love, it endangers us all. i took office at a time of two wars for the united states. wars for the united states. the violent extremists during us into war in the first place. osama remained at large. today we set a new direction. at the end of this year, america's military operation will be over. we will have a normal relationship with a sovereign nation that is a member of a community.

it will be strengthened. for its people, for their aspirations. as we end the war, the united states and our partners have begun a transition in afghanistan. it is an increasingly capable afghan government and security forces will step forward and take responsibility for the future of their country. we're drawing down our own forces and building an enduring partnership with the afghan people. let there be no doubt. the tide of war is receding. i took office when 180,000 americans are serving in afghanistan. by the end of this year, that number will be cut in half and

will continue to decline. this is critical for the sovereignty of iraq and afghanistan and is critical to the strength of the united states to rebuild our nation at home. we are poised to end these wars reposition of strength. 10 years ago there was an open wound of broken hearts and the center -- at the center. as a new power is rising at ground zero the symbolizes new york's renewal even as al qaeda is under more pressure than ever before. leadership has been degraded. osama bin laden will never in danger the piece of the world again. this has been a difficult decade.

today we stand at a crossroad. there is the chance to move decisively in the direction of peace. to do so we must return to the wisdom of those who created this institution. foundingd nations' charter calls upon us to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security. security. article one reminds us that all human beings are born free in dignity and rights. those beliefs and the responsibility of states and the rights of men and women must be our guide. in effort, we have reason to hope. this year has been a time of extraordinary transformation.

more nations have stepped forward to maintain international peace and security. more individuals are claiming their universe rights to live in dignity. think about it. one year ago when we met in new york, the prospect of a successful referendum was in doubt. the international community overcame the divisions to support the agreement that have been negotiated to give self- determination. last summer, as a new flag went up, former soldiers lay down their arms, men and women wept with joy, and the children finally made the promise of looking to a future that they will shape. one year ago, the people approached a landmark election.

the world refuse to look the other way. u.n. peacekeepers were harassed. u.n. peacekeepers were harassed. they did not leave their posts spirit of the security council led by the united states, nigeria, and france came together to support the will of the people. it is now governed by the man who was elected to lead. one year ago, the hope of the people of were suppressed. they chose the dignity of peaceful protest over the rule of an iron fist. a vendor lit a spark that of his own life. he ignited a movement. in the face of a crackdown, the balance of fear shifted from those that he ruled.

they will move them one step closer to the democracy. one year ago, egypt had known one present for nearly 30 years. for 18 days the eyes of the world were glued to the square. egyptians from all walks of life, men and women, young and old, muslim and christian demanded their universal rights. we saw in the protests the moral force of nonviolence that has led the bellies of those people. to we need change had come to egypt and into the arab world. one year ago, the people of libya and for world by the world's longest serving dictator.

faced with the bullets, bombs, and a dictator that threaten to hunt them down like a rat, they showed brainless -- they showed bravery. they said our words are free now. it is a feeling he cannot explain. day after day in the face of bullets and bombs, the libyan people refuse to give back that freed them. when they were threatened by the mass atrocities that often went unchallenged, the united nations lived up to its charter. did the security council authorized on necessary measures to prevent it. they called for this effort. arab nations joined this. et al. to them in their tracks. the months that followed, the

will of the coalition proved unbreakable. the will of the libyan people cannot be denied. 42 years of tyranny was ended in six months. from tripoli to benghazi, libya is free. if the leaders took their rightful place beside us. this week the united states is reopening our industry. this is how the international community is supposed to work. nation standing together for the sake of peace and security. all of us have a responsibility to support the new libya as they confront the challenge of turning this into a lasting peace for all libyans.

this has been a remarkable year. the gaddafi regime is over. they're no longer in power. osama is gone. the idea that change something ir world. the way things have been is not the way they will be. the humiliating growth of corruption and tyranny is being pried open. dictators are on notice. technology is putting power in the hands of the people. the hands of the people. use arlin -- youth are projecting.

the promise but all human beings are born free and equal with dignity and rights is closer at hand. let us remember that peace is hard. progress can be reversed. prosperity comes slowly. societies can split apart to. the measure of our success ought to be whether people can live in sustained freedom, dignity, and security, and the united nations and member states must do its part to support those basic aspirations, and we have more work to do. in iran we have seen a

government that refuses to recognize the rights of its own people. as we meet today, men, women, and children are being tortured and detained. thousands have been killed, many during ramadan. thousands more have poured across syria of's borders. -- syria's borders. protesters are standing silently in the streets, dying for the same values this institution is supposed to stand for. for us, it is clear. will we stand for the syrian people or for the oppressors we supported a transfer of power that is responsive to the syrian people. many of our allies have to join

in, but for the peace and security and now of the world, we must speak with one voice. there is no excuse for inaction. now is the time for the united nations security council to sanction the regime and to stand with the syrian people. throughout the region, we will have june respond to the calls for change. men, women, and children gathered with the hope that the spilled blood will prevail over a corrupt system. america supports those aspirations. we have partners for a peaceful transition of power, and the movement as soon as possible,

and steps have been taken toward accountability. we are pleased with that, but more is required. will continue to call upon the government to pursue a meaningful dialogue rings peaceful change in response to the people. we believe the patriotism must be more powerful than the sectarian forces that tear them apart. we believe each nation must fulfill the aspirations of its people, and america does not expect to agree with every party or person that expresses themselves publicly, but we will always stand up for the rights embraced by this assembly. those rights depend on the elections that are free and fair. fair. respect for the rights of women

and minorities. that is what our people deserve. those are the elements of peace that can last. the united states will continue theupport the nation's transition to democracy, so freedom is followed by a democracy. we will pursue a deeper engagement and also political parties and the press. we have spent those who abuse the human rights to travel to our country. -- banned those who abuse human rights to travel to our country.

i know this week for many in this hall, there is one issue of the stands as a test and a test for american foreign policy. there is a conflict between the israelis and the palestinians. one hero, i stood at this podium and when called for an independent palestine. i believed then and now the palestinian people deserved a state of their own, but i also said a genuine peace could only be realized between israelis and palestinians themselves. one year later, despite extensive efforts they have not a bridge their differences.

faced with a stalemate, i put forward a new basis for negotiations in may of this year. now the basis is clear. israelis must know that any agreement provides assurance for their security. palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their states. i know many are frustrated by lack of progress. i assure you, so am i.. the question is not a goal and we seek. the question is how do we reach that goal. i am convinced there is no shortcut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. peace is hard work.

if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. ultimately, it is the israelis and the palestinians and who must live side by side. ultimately, it is the israelis and palestinians who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them on borders and security, on refugees and jerusalem. ultimately, peace depends upon compromise, upon people who must live together long after our speeches are over. that is the lesson of northern ireland, where people to bridge their differences. that is the lesson of sioux don, were negotiated settlement led to an -- lesson in sudan, and that will be the path to a palestinian statement,

negotiations between the parties. we see a future where palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own with no limit to what they can achieve. there is no question the palestinians have seen that delayed for too long. america has invested so much time and efforts into the palestinian state, but understand as well, america's commitment to israel's security is unshakable. our friendship with israel is the end in during. we believe any lasting peace must acknowledge the concerns israel faces every day.

let's be honest with ourselves. israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against them. israel's citizens have been killed by rockets fired. israel's children come of age knowing throughout the region other children are taught to hate them. israel, a small country of less than 8 million people, who lived in a world where leaders of a much larger nation threatened to wipe them off the map. the jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution and fresh memories of knowing the 6 million people were killed simply by knowing who they were. those are facts that cannot be denied.

the jewish people have formed a successful stage in their homeland. homeland. israel deserves recognition, and friends of the palestinians do them no favor by ignoring this truth now. they must recognize the need to secure a two-state solution. that is the truth. each side has a legitimate aspirations, and that is part of what makes a piece so hard. the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other's shoes. each side can see the world through the other's eyes. that is what we should be encouraging. that is what we should be promoting. this body, founded as it was out of the ashes of war and genocide, dedicated to the

dignity of every single person must recognize the reality of the palestinians and israelis. the measure of our actions must always be whether they advance the rights of israeli and palestinian children to live lives of peace and opportunity. we will only succeed if we can encourage the parties to sit down, to listen to each other, and to understand each other's hopes and each other's views. that is the project to which america is committed. there are no shortcuts. that is what the united nations should be focused on in weeks and months to come. even as we confront the challenges of conflict and

revolution, we must also recognize -- we must also remind ourselves but peace is not just the absence of war. true peace depends on creating the opportunity that makes life worth living. to do that, we must confront the common enemies of humanity, nuclear weapons, ignorance, and disease. these corrode the possibility of lasting peace, and together we are called upon to confront them. to lift the specter of mass destruction, we must come together to promote peace and security. we have begun to walk down that path. since our nuclear security summit in washington, 50 nations have taken steps to secure an

end nuclear materials. next march, a summit in seoul will advance our efforts to lock down all of thumb -- all of them. the new treaty between the united states and russia will cut our arsenal to the lowest level in half a century, and our nations are looking at how to achieve even deeper reductions. america will continue to work for a ban on the testing of nuclear weapons and the production of material needed to make them, so we have begun to move in the right direction, and the united states is committed to meeting our obligations. we must continue to hold accountable nations.

the iranian government cannot prove its efforts to be peaceful, there will be problems. north korea has yet to take steps to abandoning its weapons. there is a future of greater opportunity for the people of these nations if their governments meet international obligations. now if they continue on a path outside of international law, they must be met with greater pressure and isolation. that is what our commitment to peace and security demands. to bring prosperity to our people, we must promote growth that brings opportunity. this effort, let us not forget we have made enormous profits. step to society it isn't

innovation. now it has lifted hundreds of millions of people from poverty. it is a historic achievement, yet we were faced with the worst crisis in eight decades. that proved a fact that has become clearer. states are interconnected. today we must prevent the challenges the have followed on the heels. the economies are still fragile. markets remain volatile. too many people are out of work. to many others are struggling just to get by. we acted together to avoid a depression in 2009.

we must take urgent action once more. in the united states i have announced a plan to put americans back to work and to jump-start our economy. at the same time, i am committed to substantially reducing our deficit over time. we stand with european allies as they reshape institutions and address their own fiscal challenges. for other countries, leaders face a challenge as a shift towards more alliances -- toward self-reliance. we will move so that now rising standards of living promote global growth. that is what our commitment to cross it -- to prosperity and demands. we must act on the belief that freedom for one is a basic human right. the united states has made it a

focus to help people see themselves, and today it is conflict but have brought famine to the horn of africa, and our conscience calls on us to ride. together, we must provide assistance and support that can reach those in need, and we must assume it -- must insist on unrestricted access so we can save the lives of thousands of men and women and children. our common humanity is at stake. let's show that the life of a child in somalia is as precious as any other. that is what our commitment to our fellow human beings demands. now to stop disease of spreads across borders, we must strengthen our system of public health. we will continue to fight against hiv aids, tuberculosis,

and malaria. we will focus on the health of mothers and children, and we must come together to prevent and detect and fight every biological danger, whether it is a pandemic or a terrorist threat, or a treatable disease. this week america signed an agreement with the world health organization to affirm our commitment to meet this challenge, and i urge all nations to join us in this goal of making sure all nations can address public health emergencies in place by 2012. that is what our commitment to the health of our people demands. to preserve our planet, we must not put off action that climate change demands. we have to use the power of science to save resources that

are scarce, and together we must continue our work to build on progress in copenhagen so all major economies follow through on the commitments that were made. together we must work to transform energy that powers our economies and support others as they move down that path. that is what our commitment to the next generation demands. to make sure our society has to make sure our society has reached its potential, we must allow our citizens to reach theirs. no country can afford the corruption that plagues the world like a cancer. together we must harness the power of open societies and open economies. that is why we partner with countries across the globe to launch a new partnership now bonn government that helps

ensure accountability and helps empower citizens. no country should deny people the rights of freedom of speech or freedom of religion, but also, no country should deny people the reason -- the right to love who they want, which is why we should stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians everywhere. no country can reach its potential is half the population cannot read shares. this week the united states this week the united states signed a new treaty. we must not break down the barriers that stand in the way of when men and girls. -- of women and girls. this is what our commitment to human progress demands. i know there is no single pass.

we come from different cultures and carry different histories, but let us never forget that even as we gather here, we represent citizens that share the same basic aspirations -- to live with dignity and freedom, get an education, and pursue opportunities, to love our families, and love and warsh of our god, -- warship -- worship our god. it is the nature of our imperfect world that we're forced to learn these lessons over and over again. we have built institutions like this to bind our faith together,

recognize in each other. the freedom is preferable to suppression. prosperity is preferable to poverty. that is the message that comes from citizens, from our people, and when the cornerstone of this building was put in place, president truman came to new york and said the united nations is the expression of the moral nature of man's aspirations. as we live in a world that is changing at a breathtaking pace common that is a lesson we must never forget. peace is hard, but we know it is possible, so to gather, let us resolve to see it is defined by our hopes and not by our fears.

together, let us make a peace that will last. thank you very much. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] speech, the president's he and israeli prime minister netanyahu talked to reporters. the israeli prime minister will give his speech on friday. >> i want to welcome prime minister netanyahu to new york. the bonds between the united states and israel are

unbreakable, and the united states commitment to israel's security is unbreakable. i think it is fair to say our security cooperation is stronger than it has ever been. i am looking forward to a good discussion about the events not only in the united nations but the developments that have taken place in the region. as i just indicated, peace cannot be imposed on the parties. it is going to have to be negotiated. one-sided action will receive neither statehood or self- determination, but israelis and palestinians sitting down together and working through these positions that have kept the parties apart for decades, that is what can achieve the ultimate goal for all of us, which is two states living side

by side in peace and security. recent events remind us how fragile peace can be and why the pursuit of middle east peace is more fragile than ever, and i know the prime minister recognizes america's commitment to israel will never waver and that our pursuit of a just and lasting peace is one that is not only compatible, but we put israel's security at the forefront, so it is a great pleasure to have the prime minister here. i want to thank him for his cooperation, and i am looking forward to an excellent discussion. thank you very much. >> i want to thank you for standing with israel and supporting peace through direct negotiations. we both agreed this was the only way to achieve peace.

we both agree palestinians and israelis should sit down together and negotiate an agreement of mutual recognition of security. i think this is the only way to get to a stable and durable peace, but you have also made it clear the palestinians deserve a state, a state that has to live at peace with israel, and an attempt to short cut these problems, that attempt to get state membership in the united nations will not succeed. i think the palestinians want to achieve a state for the international community, but they are not prepared yet to give peace to israel in return, and my hope is there will be other leaders in the world who will heed your call, mr. president, and oppose this effort to short cuts peace

negotiations, because i think avoiding these negotiations is bad for israel, for palestinians, and bad for peace. i know they are under enormous pressure. i know an automatic majority is against israel, but i think standing your ground, taking this position on principle, which is the right position to achieve peace, and i think this is a badge of honor, and i want to thank you for wearing the badge of honor, and i want to express my hope others will follow your example, so i want to thank you. >> thank you, everybody. >> in his address to the un general assembly, french

president nas sarcozy said france would oppose recognition of palestinian independence and urged observer status instead. he spoke for 15 minutes. he spoke for 15 minutes. >> mr. president, mr. secretary general, when we met here in this very place in september of last year, who amongst us could have imagined that in nearly one year, in the world already convulsed by a and already an unprecedented crisis would have undergone such changes in just a few months. the arab springs have given rise

to extraordinary hope. for too long, the arab people were submitted to oppression, but they rose up, lifted their heads, and claimed the right to be free at last. with their bare hands, they phase violence and brutality -- they face violence and oppression. those that claim the arab-muslim world is hostile to democracy and human rights, to those people, and the a posers people, and the a posers provided the we do not have the right to

disappoint the hopes of the arab peoples. we do not have the right to destroy their dreams. if the hopes of these people are broken, this will vindicate these fanatics. it sets islam against the west by stirring up hatred and violence throughout the world. it is an appeal that is shaking the world. the world cannot respond to this appeal. it reminds us of our moral and political obligations.

we can wait no longer. i think the method. i choose my words carefully that it has failed. let us change the method. let us stop believing that a single country or a small group of countries can resolve so complex a problem. no one could have imagined that the process could succeed without europe. no one could imagine that the process could succeed without

the involvement of all of the permanent measures of the security council. no one could imagine that without the involvement of the arab states that have already chosen peace. the collective approach is not indispensable to create trust and offer real guarantees to each of the parties. it'll be by the israelis and palestinians. no one can claim to do it. we must help them. the method is no longer working. but recognize that by setting preconditions and we do ourselves to failure.

if you wish to enter and, it is the only way forward. there must be no preconditions. let us and how do this. there is the road map. there is the road map. they were agreed upon by the european union. this is an endless debate. it does begin negotiations. and adopt a precise and ambitious timetable. does the suggest they should change the method? six months to agree on this. one year to reach a definitive

it is hosting a conference of governors so that they can complete the construction of their future state. we should not look for the perfect solution there are no perfect solutions. path ofoose the compromise. it is not a denouncement. it is not a repudiation. let's move forward step by step. they have been waiting for their state. givet the time come to them some hope? for over 60 years they are being denied the right to live in

peace. for over 60 years, the question of peaceful coexistence of the two people's, cassell sedans and israelis have continued to fester. we can no longer wait to take this. put ourselves in the pace of the palestinians. is not their claim legitimate stacks of course it is. who does not see that a democratic and peaceful palestinian state would be for israel best guarantee of the security was put ourselves in the plans of the israeli. the plans of the israeli. is not their demands , but they have guarantees.

i say this forcefully. i say this forcefully. france would wholeheartedly stand alongside israel. stand alongside israel. threats made are unacceptable. they will not accept it. today we are facing a very difficult choice. each of us knows. let's not be hypocritical about this. be diplomats to for a day. each of us knows the recognition of the status for a united nations member cannot be obtained immediately. the first reason is a lack of trust. let's tell the truth here.

who can doubt that a veto would not risk engine during the cycle of violence in the middle east. who could doubt that tax must we exclude -- who could doubt that? must we is could this? this will be an important step forward. forward. after 60 years of the inability, we would be giving hope to the palestinians. we can make progress toward final status. we would be in favor of an

associated pc. the kids the right to exist for the security. the security. we have the inability. it would give hope to the palestinians with the status ticket israel must observe the same restraint. it must abstain from any actions that could prejudice the final status. the goal must be mutual recognition established on the basis of the 1967 lines but the

equivalent exchanges of land. through this channel assembly that has the power to decide to move ahead and move out of this fatal paralysis, they have failed attempt. failed attempt. each must open their eyes. we must be ready to make successions. alibi to say think of the israeli mother's grieving for their children killed in terrorist outrages. they feel the same pain as the

palestinian mothers. palestinian mothers. i say this with deep and sincere friendship for the israeli people listening to what the young people of the arab spring as saying. long live free them. they're not crying debt to issue. we can not be in mobile 1 this one of freedom is blowing in your region. i say this with sincere people for those who suffered so much at the time has come to build peace. it would be too much to seize

the opportunity to wake of the arab people. they can address a problem that is making these people unhappy and are condemned to live alongside each other kirin if we take a compromise solution, we will rebuild trust. we will give people hope. i say this we must assume responsibility. it is the irresponsibility that must not miss this. the solution is on the table.

let's just take this compromise solution over blockage. that might satisfy everyone here and will create violence. and opposition. and opposition. it will imperil the weakening of the people. the tragedy must cease for a simple reason >> next on c- span, eric schmidt addresses antitrust accusations at a senate hearing. they have given a temporary spending measure for the next two months. president obama speaks to the un general assembly in new york. tomorrow on "washington journal"

dennis cassettes on the republican ballot. we talk about how the new consumer financial protection bureau regulates the credit's going to agencies. it begins live each morning at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> in my opinion, i think the bounds of academic freedom have just been pushed too far. >> she suggests that 10 years job for life entitlement mentality need to go. >> there are professionals of cooking who have tenure now. when pressed, someone who is telling the party line will say we need someone who has the security study said they can talk about immigration even

though it is controversial. someone in nutritional studies knees to say something controversial about of the city. >> why you not get the college education to pay for sunday night. >> the c-span network. we provide coverage of politics, public affairs and american history. look for congress to continue federal spending into november. they seem to continue to campaign across the country. we are on the road with the c- span content the go. it is washington your way.

>> they are responding to accusations that the company works in an anti-competitive manner. the subcommittee hearing is three hours. >> get afternoon. we need to discuss an issue that affects everyone that does business over the internet. almost everybody. it is how google presented to consumers and treats the businesses it competes with. our centers on whether google biases these results as the

critics charge or whether google does its best in a matter. i wish that i come to this hearing with an entirely open mind about any prejudgment of these issues. my goal is to provide the critics with a forum to air their views. recognize the incredible technological achievements and stifle theus creativity. we also need to recognize that as a dominant in internet search, and google has special ones in the antitrust law. there can be no question of the astounding achievement of the search engine.

through the magic of the technology, and google literally started to in russia less than 15 years ago -- in garage less than 15 years ago. it is an accessible listing on the computer screen. 70% of all u.s. internet searches and 950 mobile devices are done on google's search engine. millions of people run the searches to find out the answer to nearly every question unanswerable -- imaginable. businesses rely on google to find customers. it would build an unbiased search engine. consumers would see the most relevant search result first and that the search results would

not be influenced by the commercial relationship with google. the goal is to get the user of the google page and on to the web site as soon as possible. as larry page 72004 "we want you to come to google and quickly find what you want. we are happy to send you to the other sides. that is the point." as it becomes a major channel, google has grown more dominant. it appears the mission may have changed. in the last five years, google has been on a binge acquiring dozens of internet related businesses culminating with this proposed acquisition. and now has numerous businesses. this has transformed to google from a mere search engine into a

major internet conglomerate. these acquisitions raise a fundamental question, is it possible for google to be both unbiased search engine and on a vast portfolio of products and services. does it create an inherent internetof interest deck? businesses that compete with the products and services have complained that google is behaving in a way contrary to fair competition. google is trying to leverage their dominant in internet search in two key areas where it stands to capture from its competitors and billions of dollars in advertising revenue.

priority that the internet remain an open and free competition as it has been since it was founded. we need to protect the ability for the next google to emerge in the next great web site being developed to a rise in silicon valley. >> thank you. into the search is critical and the united states. google has long been a dominant force.

americans google certification frequently that the name has become a generic bird that means "to search the internet." more than 75% of advertising, given the dominant position, must rely on google for a substantial share of their traffic and revenues. lacher they generated nearly $30 billion in search advertising. this has enormous power over the information they find. a former antitrust chief suggested that it makes google a

monopoly gatekeeper to the internet. whether or not they formally qualify as a monopoly, one thing is clear. google is in position to help determine fuel succeed in fuel fail. google is the biggest maker on earth. google has used the revenue to branch out into a multitude of internet businesses largely by acquiring 100 different companies. with the recent purchase of the

mobility, google is poised to get into the business of global handset manufacturing. with the expansion, a large number of businesses and consumer groups have raised concern, suggesting they may be acting in anticompetitive ways. google is under investigation by authorities in united states and a board -- abroad. i appreciate the leadership and calling a hearing to address this important topic. from its inception, the stated goal was to have users leave the website as quickly as possible. they appear to have changed the approach and to steer users to its own competing services. google has worked hard. there is concern that they employ more attractive visual

displays to it and is the amount secondary site to the detriment to competing specialized search site and to other disadvantaged businesses. there is evidence that taken reviews from competing sites like trip adviser and use the data as part of its own services and demoted the search results ranking. some reports suggest that google has taken steps to impede engines from crawling and returning search results to the youtube content. access is crucial in critical to enabling other search engines to compete here it is an effort to block this. it is a broad array of

syndication. bugles contracts with advertisers impose limits on the ability to transfer data is sues -- associated with the platform. it to make the process simple or even automatic. studied by a professor concluded that the net effect is to reinforce the tendency of small advertisers to use only the words to competing platforms. many are concerned that google may be seeking to prevent smartphone manufacturers.

in assessing each of these concerns, the primary focus of our analysis should be consumer welfare. growing complaints that they're using the dominance to favor its own offerings at the expense of competition deserves serious attention, especially if consumers are misled by preferential display. there are competing sites depriving them of resources needed to develop more services. it leads to increase prices for consumers. i believe ensuring robust competition will benefit consumers. i believe that preserving this can help forestall the

imposition of regulation. thank you. >> of like to introduce our first witness who will be mr. eric schmidt. he has served as executive chairman since april of this year. from 2001 to 2011 was the chief executive officer of the company. we will introduce our second panel before he testifies. >> i really appreciate this very special privilege. the three gentlemen you will hear from come from the heart of the san francisco bay area. i am now the chairman of the goal for many years. he has a long history in silicon valley and at the helm of a number of america's most

innovative companies. he is them with google since 2001. he is helped it grow from less than 1000 employees to 28,000, 13,000 of whom are in california. it is a 45% growth even in the most difficult times of the past two years with 5000 new hires in california. under his leadership, google has been helping business throughout the golden state. it provided 15 billion in economic activity. the ceo is from san francisco. this is a price comparison website company. it allows people to search for projects in see available online prices for the projects.

he has extensive experience in in internet and travel industries, having held a variety of positions at american airlines, serving as president and ceo, being the chairman and bouncing ceo of the travel web site or bits -- orbitz. he holds a master's degree of science. the co-founder of yelp. then will be the co-founder, ceo of a small innovative company from san francisco whose web site allows people to search for local businesses or types of businesses and find profiles of the businesses and its results

including customer reviews and rankings, photographs and other similar businesses. he worked as the vice president of engineering and paypal before dropping out of harvard business school. as you can see, you have three very well qualified citizens. i hope they tangle rather than tain bo -- i hope they tango rather than table. >> we like to thank all the witnesses who are appearing here today. i like you to rise and step forward. do you testify that you will say the truce and nothing but the truth?

>> we like to hear what you have to say. >> thank you for inviting me here today. i want to take a step back. a firm setting the world on fire. it is synonymous with innovation. i was an executive. they have a absorbed the lessons of the era. it is a very short message about our company. we get the lessons of our corporate predecessors. this is fine. we as the help us answer that it

means the focus and that we can continue to create jobs in building products that delight our users. i like to start by explaining how we think about our own business in the principles that guide the decisions that i am sure you will want to talk about. always put consumer's purse. last year we made more than 500 changes. this is not an easy task. it means that not every website comes on top. there are definitely complaints of businesses to want to be first. focus on loyalty and not locked in. we do not track our users. if you do not like the answer, he can switch to another engine with literally one click. a lot of people do this.

if you want to use google services -- if you want to leave other google services, you can do so and take it as a witty without any hassle. we are innovating and making our products better. we do not want to say because they are locked in. open technology includes open sores, meaning that we release and support those that help grow the internet. we worked to create the standards. we share more of information about how our products work in any of our competitors. we give advertisers detailed information about performance and return on investment. 10 years ago no one would have guessed, certainly ire anybody else that vocabulary in economics look what it does today. no one will know what it looks like in one year or five years.

despite what others say, i think our featured in america is very bright. there is no doubt that we are facing difficult times. there's never been a more exciting time. floss' some have given up, google is doubling down. we are investing in people. we had fewer than 1000 employees. earlier this year we announced that 2011 will be our biggest part of the year yet. we are investing in mobile. just look at our plans to acquire more. we believe that this is good for competition and the american and economy. we are confident that this acquisition will lead to growth and mobile technology. we are investing in local. 97 some of the people look online.

only 63% did not have a web site at all. this is a missed opportunity. we started an initiative to help small businesses get online. last year alone, it provided $64 billion in economic activity to other companies and not private for the united states. we are very proud. it is the most dynamic part of the u.s. economy. the internet was responsible for fifteens term of america's gdp growth in the last five years. the internet is home to some of america's most successful companies. we compete hard against each other. we welcome the competition. it makes us better.

and it a competitor better. in means that your problems for our users. it is google turn in the spotlight. we respect the rule. i do as you remember that not all companies are cut from the same cloth. one company's pact might be another's future. we live in a different world. the open internet is the ultimate level playing field. we believe it will reveal an enthusiastic company filled with people who believe we have only scratched the service of what is possible. the passion to do venture will serve our nation well. it'll help create new jobs and economic growth that are wonderful country needs. thank you for this time. >> thank you. we appreciate you have to say.

we hear you say you want for by consumers answers to questions not nearly link to the but size that provide the answers. what do you say to those of argue there is a fundamental conflict of interest between only providing unbiased web links and not providing answers? the 0 many of these services providing the answers. would we expect google to favor its products and services of in providing these answers? >> i am google is a rational business trying to rationalize

the projects. as we addressed, google is run under a set of principles that are really quite profound than the company. one of the most important principles is solving the problems the consumer has. 10 years ago, the best answer may have been the ranks -- the links we saw. think of it as if you are looking for an answer. he want the answer quickly. speed matters, especially at the level we are at. >> is another way to say trust us. we will do the right thing. it is rare the sufficient given

your clear business incentives to maximize the value of your company. shouldn't we be guided by the words of a great president ronald reagan has said trust but verify? >> i completely agree. i hope this is in process. the ultimate correction against any mistakes that google made is how consumers be paid. we live in a great fear every day that consumers will switch extraordinarily quickly to other services. one of the consequences of the open internet is people have choices they did not have in previous generations. in every site, it is available if you type the name into the browser. in all cases, we are trying to say that our customers want accurate answers. it is if they switch.

because we do it so well, we think we are in that position. nevertheless, when we do that, we found that we actually know, we do side-by-side test to know the we producing what customers want. >> there is a conference in 2007. one of the goals top executives discussed of google placed its products and services on the search results page.

when we rolled out of this, it puts the google link first. it seems only fair. we do all the work and all these other things. we put it offers. that has been our policy since then pic. it is the first link. it is raining by popularity. when she made the comments, she was speaking accurately. had the measure what she says ben? >> i was not there. maybe i should use my own voice on this question. there is a category that are not well served by be answered. people what a map right then and

there. they have also invested hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in producing what we think of the best map the products around. when somebody types in the address, click actually want to have a map. we show it to them quickly. it would be difficult to do that with another model. we would not be able to do that kind of innovation. they would have similar products. >> let me say she said lead for the economy rolled it out, we did put blinkers. it seems only fair.

>> we implemented the way i described it. we started off by providing google links. we decided it would be better to have a simple tool. wii licensed that technology from the nasdaq. that was the source of her answer. we moved from the standard answer to this simple answer. ad hoc what happened after that is right below it. you see all of the top engines. it to be below are answers.

this to be the most popular. the yahoo! answer comes after this. it is easier by to describe it. after that we will show you links to yahoo! finance. i disagree with the characterization that somehow we read discriminating against the others. >> thank you. >> thank you for being with us. >> [unintelligible] >> they are when they are in

ranking. the core question that both of you address in your opening statement was this question of where we sympathize are come up with an answer to question. if we know the answer, it is better for the consumer to answer that question so they do not have to click anywhere. we tended to use that resources on our own. we cannot engineer if any other way. >> i am not asking whether you are giving the right information that you regard as most helpful. it is whether your own secondary services that google offers. are they subject to the same standard as all the other results of an organic -- algorithmic search? >> i am not aware of any strange biases.

you will see everything intermix in a way that is often in. comex i would like to show a visual aid. >> this is a chart that reflects a search of a study that shows the ranking of the popular price comparison sites. there are various shades of green. the google results are depicted in red. issues a vivid variation ranking first for some and near 50 of

four others. google has a very success rate. it is virtually in every single instance. your testimony that these rankings almost exclusively are in the third spot are the results of the same algorithm as the rankings for the other comparison sites. >> there are two video different things going on the in study. i shall not comment beyond that. there is a difference between sites that to prod comparison and those that offer products themselves. this is about getting you to a project. -- product. we looked to the product rather than the comparison. that is why it is ranked. if you did the same city with

all of the other products sites, you find a different result. >> if we call the result a google product results, that is not subject to the same of the algorithmic alb results. >> i apologize. we do product search rankings, things like the price comparison shopping. there are different animals. they are important. they do different things. this is about searching for specific projducts. it is something similar. this is why it exists. >> it seems that this is an uncanny statistical coincidence.

there are a few ones first. you are here is the 11th. you're never 12th or 50th. every one of those others will find themselves everywhere along the spectrum, everywhere. you are always third almost every time. how do you explain that that lets out have to look at the specific results. >> we have the right here. >> out actually need to see the technical details to give you a direct answer. you are having product comparison sites and their results are being compared against google answers which are projects. they cannot be properly compared. that is why i think you're seeing such a strange results. >> it seems to me when i see this and magic coming up there every time, i do not know whether you call this a separate algorithm or whether you reverse

engineered another. either way, he proved it. you're always there. >> we have not cooked anything. hikes you have an uncanny ability and natural attraction -- you have an uncanny ability and natural attraction. let's look at the search results. this is the project of a search query for a particular camera model. we bring up a google product listing. it is near the middle of the search screen results. you know from your research that the middle of the first screen is where they're likely to focus. that is prime real estate. >> it goes from the top to the bottom. >> you want to be at or near the top of the list. >> in general, you want to be on the first page.

>> ok. >> among the natural search results, it is the only result that includes the photo. we have highlighted it here. it is different. there is nothing online that differentiate its as a google listing. there's nothing that indicates this is even google. it is the most prominent. >> this is not an ad. this is an organic search result that is triggered by a product search data base that we have gathered by offerings from many different vendors.

>> i maintain my colleague's position for maintaining it in the high-tech sector. they are building the infrastructure in future economy. it is critical that technological growth not be unfairly constrained. that is how all markets work, particularly in area were innovation really matters. i think the investigation will get to the heart of the facts behind the kind of allegations we're hearing. that is a good thing. it is always important we examine market dominance with a critical eye. it is critical to the future. when most people hear about high-tech sectors, they do not necessarily think of new york.

by many measures, new york is number one number two when it comes to employer investment. it is the second hole largest recipient. we pass boston this year. the only trailed silicon valley. this is the statistic that is affecting many. by some measures, it has more workers and the high-tech industry than any other region in the country. there classified as high-tech companies. it is more than boston and washington. it is hidden by some of the other industries. jpmorgan has more computer programmers and companies like google or microsoft. it is very important to new york. google has been an important part of this. they bought the largest office

building in manhattan. they employ 3000 people. in 2010, it provided a $25 billion of economic activity for publishers and nonprofits. i would like unanimous consent. did the numbers of letters i have received describing a significant role that they played. obviously, it raises power. there's great responsibility. i wanted to get a fix on this. frankly, the future of new york is locked with little companies. there are hundreds of them that are burgeoning. if google were being rapacious it would hurt new york. every six months are so i need to some of the leading companies

in new york. we talked about the problem they face. we do not have enough engineers in new york. immigration is a huge problem. we will need to reform it, things like that. without even prompting them, this is important for them to hear. each of them had 200 employees that do not exist a couple of years ago. what do you think of google? are the rapacious tax are they competing with you? are they trying to do this tax at thought it was being very taking advantage of. are they genuinely, do they have a more positive attitude

and being encouraging? i expected them to attack google. that would be the natural thing to do. they did not. google is a positive force. it helps us more than it hurts us. those were their words. google is actually pretty good. we do not see them as rapacious. it has influenced me. i think my colleagues ought to hear that. while it is important that we pay attention to competition in the sector, i agree with you. that is the best way to get growth. it is also important that we focus on growth and investment and jobs. i thought i would share that with my colleagues. it is important to hear.

it was off the record. there are very frank with me. i have a question for you that is specific for new york. i do not have too much time remaining. last year they selected kansas city as a site for the new high- speed internet service. the really helped kansas city. hudson valley is very eager to be another test place. there's a lack of internet capacity. would you agree to consider the hudson valley as a future test site for your project? >> the answer is absolutely. i have been there. it is a wonderful natural resources. what we're doing is we are experimenting with a new model for broadband. if it works, it has the ability

to change the brought them. want to succeed. absolutely. >> we have heard your answers here. i'm sure you have to think about this. you're always growing and evolving. what do you think google could be doing better to foster competition that you're not doing now to help those companies grow into big successful companies? >> i'm always interested in creating greater platforms. if you look at the android today, the number of new platform opportunities for new companies to build mobile apps, we could invest a lot more money in platform support for the industry that will be built around the platform. always felt that is something we can go more and. >> runtime is there -- my time is up. thank you.

>> i'm a frequent user of your project. it is a marvel of modern technologies. i have to confess whene'er read the agreement between google and the justice department, it gave me concerns. i want to give you an opportunity to comment. if this is the determined talked about trust, which talked about ronald reagan, i want to know how you put this in the context of a positive contribution to productivity and technology. the agreement between google and the department of justice who will admit to helping pharmacies illegally sell hundreds of

millions of dollars of counterfeit and tainted prescription drugs. google paid one of the largest criminal pulp -- penalties levied in history. $500 million. as early as 2003 they were on notice that katie -- canadian pharmacies were advertising prescription drugs in the united states. although google block pharmacies in countries other than canada, google continued to allow a canadian pharmacy companies to target the united states. cool new that consumers were making online purchases from these pharmacies. in this document, googled knew that many of these of army --

pharmacies sold based on an online consultation rather than a valid consultation. it was not until 2009 when they became aware of the investigation of its advertising practices in the online pharmacy area that google took a number of steps to prevent the unlawful sale of prescription drugs to u.s. consumers. i want to give you the opportunity to put that in context so we can get a complete picture of google as a corporate citizen. it also speaks to the issue of trust. >> all of that is generally correct. we regret what happened. we entered into the agreement you have named. unfortunately as part of the

agreement, and i have been devised we have lake agreement that we're not to speak about any of the details of it. i would have you to -- ask you to talk to department of justice. >> is that in the agreement? >> it is in there somewhere. in any case, the important thing is that the conduct that was covered has nothing to do with any of our current advertising practices. it was a historical event. >> was of the result of oversight or inadvertence? rather some come -- employees that were doing this without your knowledge? >> certainly not without my knowledge. i am not allowed to go into any details. i apologize. was ae regretful and it

mistake. >> my counselor advises me that you're not allowed to contradict the agreement although you can comment on it. is your understanding different? >> let me ask my counsel. i am not allowed to go into the details beyond what has been stated in the agreement. we regret what happened. it was a mistake. we apologize to read >> do you disagree with the characterization that i gave? >> i agree with you, senator. >> you have taken the steps to make sure that sort of thing never happens again.

>> absolutely. again, it is with great regret. >> this is the antitrust subcommittee. do you agree that it becomes illegal to insist that customers of one product by another separate product? >> i am not an attorney but my general understanding is that that is correct. >> to you believe your mobile android operating system has reached that point? it is about 40% of the market to. >> as i mentioned, android is on its way to become the most successful mobile platform. we are proud of this. the operating system is first and foremost is a freely license. there is no fee to use it. on the basis of your question,

it turns out that it is possible to use google along with android but is also possible to not use it. that is not an example of the case you're describing. >> canada google design android so other our applications cannot work as well? g-mail will always be faster than yahoo!? >> under the rules of open source it is possible for anyone to modify it in any way possible. anything we did that would advantage our own applications would be reversible by somebody. we give them the source code. historical to the problem was that it was a hit in feature that a previous company would do. and now you can see it and we

could not choose it if we wanted to. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing as google is a big component of the internet was doing my own research as people were googling my name which i am sir no senator has ever done. -- sure no senator has ever done. google beat out my own facebook page and featured a column my dad wrote on sunday about the vikings game in which he says a loss of chance are silent on the odds of another football team matching the performance of the minnesota vikings on sunday. bing does not feature that

article. it made me think about how you do these rankings. according to some remarks in a recent article, googled uses nearly 200 factors to determine rankings. you change drinking formula according to this article about 500 times in 2010. some of these have a big impact. the difference between being ranked first and second is that the first results gets 35% of the clicks. the second gets about 11%. when you change your formula companies might end up being the second page or further down the line. businesses are telling me how they want certainty. i know that google is innovating and changing its algorithms. do you think companies should have a right to expect more certainty? >> in the situation you

describe, i have a lot of sympathy for the business whose ranking has gone down. there is no question that natural search results to drive revenue traffic. when we make a change, there are under -- unintended consequences. it is important to know that the another company goes to the top. we are in the business of drinking. by definition those decisions are not perfect. our algorithms are not specific to a company. you could have a situation where they rankings change for no particular good reason. there is another business that got a surprising boost and they are not complaining. we do not know how to be more precise in rankings because as we improve we have to touch a billion people. we make it change roughly every 12 hours.

most of them are minor. in the article you are referring to a -- >> it is a small business that makes swimming pools. they said they paid $40,000 for an online advertisements to make up for the fact they had been put down in the rankings. they admitted how important google was. you could see the cost it was for them. >> there is no question it is a cost to really do not know how to do it with more certainty given the principles i described about user testing. we did make a large change in six months ago which touched a lot of firms dealing with low- quality content farms. that is relatively rare when we make that kind of change. >> one other issue is those reports that google and the websites participate as the

bidders in auctions for search advertisements. does google or its associates participate in those options? >> the options that google runs. reeve ron an auction around advertising. we do show house ads. in that sense we participate. we try to limit that for obvious reasons. it is a tiny number. >> one thing i have been focused on is intellectual property. books, movies, music. this is money that has been going out of our country. what happens if you type in a legitimate song or movie, you might be steered in some of the top rankings to an illegitimate site. is there anything more you could do to take responsibility? a different issue than the antitrust but i am curious. >> it is an important issue.

we agree there is a real problem. we have taken the position we have to represent the web as it is. we try not to sensor's things. in those cases, we favor positions which involve following the money. people who are stealing content -- we think that is the best approach. >> so you follow the money. there must be some way to figure out if the sites are illegitimate. they still keep coming up. >> it is difficult. let's say i am a stealing signs. we can do a test for trademark violations. the company can services with another site. the other problem with copyright is it is hard to know who owns

the copyright. we have a successful program in youtube where content owners register their videos and if it is illegally uploaded we can do the comparison. we cannot do that because of the nature of the web. >> are you going to continue to work on this issue? >> it has affected our business with people on whom we depend. we are under pressure to resolve this with a good solution. the core problem is that you can look at a website. you can tell that it is infringement just like that. a computer cannot. to do it systematically is a hard computer science problem. >> google did a good event in minnesota. they reached out to our small businesses and helped them set up websites. i know there is legitimate work being done with the small

businesses. i share the concerns about some of this ordering. since senator schumer mention having google when it went to kansas city, which are focused on the loose. -- duluth. >> one of the great things about google is small businesses can be ranked higher than they would otherwise be. they can be specific. we show small businesses better than in other approaches. >> thank you, senator. >> i want to make a statement. before i do, i was reminded that one of those workshops is going to be held next week. if we maintain our week-long recess, i am going to go to that. i will have a short statement

and then i want to put this in the record. i have heard good and bad about google. some are concerned you are using your market power to manipulate searches and drive to web traffic to the detriment of small businesses. they are frustrated by business practices that are not transparent. they believe the google is engaging in anti-competitive and behavior. others are supportive of your products and services. their concern that the government is being overly aggressive and will place regulations on a country that is innovating. we should not be penalized -- penalizing successful companies that are creating jobs. i also believe that companies should not take unfair advantage of their market power and engage

in practices that negatively impact the marketplace. governments should not be picking winners and losers. there should be a level playing field and all companies must play by the rules. they should employ transparent business practices that do not harm competition and impede consumer choice. i'm going to quote several people on both sides. i will start out with what to do you say to those who are concerned that the google "uses its power to manipulate consumers and drive traffic to a self and away from potential competitors for traffic and ad revenue?" the additional quote, "exerting

power to direct internet traffic in ways that hurt many small businesses." >> i would like to return to the philosophy we have had four years in which is getting to the right answer. we have lot of systems inside the company, internal testing, external testing, to make sure we are producing the right results. that is the guy we years. it is possible that in the course of that good and well meaning small businesses move up and down in the rankings. we are in the rankings business. for every loser there is a winner. i am satisfied that the vast majority of small businesses are well served by our approach. as i said earlier, i believe that our system promotes and

enhances small business over larger businesses. it gives them a hearing they would not otherwise have because of the nature of the op -- auger rhythms. >> this is somebody who supports google. how would you respond to "offer their restrictions are the surest way to impede innovation and threaten the recovery." >> and we would be happy to be reviewed based on the principles we set out which are to focus on consumer and consumer choices. we are worried about consumers moving to our current largest competitor which is bing and the many new ones to cover merger. we are in a highly competitive market. we welcome the oversight but we sk the way -- ask you

understand the way we do business. >> in addition to anything you want to say, how can small businesses's websites compare on googled? e? >> small businesses were more nimble when it came to the internet. we have a long history of promoting businesses. we love this. small businesses succeed where the larger ones cannot. they succeed because of specialization. what we tried to do when we get companies on-get them to articulate the union way in which they are different. there's something unique about the citizens and in the culture of your state. they will be ranked higher and appeal to a broader audience.

it is great we can have a local flavor with a global impact. global impact in terms of the market your servant. >> a question from somebody who is not an admirer. complaints along the line that google is directing users to google operated websites regardless of whether the organic results of the search directed to competing sites. some are concerned that small businesses are not treated in a fair and competitive manner and at the top search results are often given to large, national companies. even when a search designates a specific location. small businesses are being cheated and consumers being misled. your response.

>> it is possible you're describing failures of our algorithm. a large company can masquerade as a small businesses. it may be difficult to detect it. we're constantly making changes to try to improve it. in the case you're describing, part of the answer is that hopefully you will have a mixture of large and small companies that reflect the best of iowa. the rhythms are so difficult to characterize. there are some many signals. -- so many signals. >> thank you, senator. senator franken. >> thank you for this hearing. i want to start off by saying i love google. i said that the last time.

i think it bears repeating. google has transformed the way we locate and use information. i've a feeling they will continue to be among those is setting the standard for innovation for decades to come. in many ways google's unprecedented growth and success is also one of the reasons we need to pay attention to what you are doing. as you get bigger and bigger, i worry about what that means for the next larry page who is struggling to build the next innovative product is in a garage. i am skeptical of big companies that control information and the distribution channels to that information. for me that is at the heart of the problem.

when you completely dominate how people search for information and you own separate products that you want to succeed, your incentives shift. your fiduciary duties to your shareholders shifted and people have reason to worry. there has been all lot of talk about where your placement on the search. i was taken aback by an answer you gave. the chairman and brought up the quote that we put the google link fair and -- first. it seems only fair. we do all of these other things. if we put it first.

you said that well, you put a map out there. when somebody wants a map, you put out a map and. that is what they want. i sort of understand that. or the stock price. but then the ranking member ask you, one that is not the case. out the're not putting answer that people want, when you're not doing that, do all your rankings reflect an unbiased algorithm? you said, after hesitation, i believe so. that seems like a fuzzy answer

coming from the chairman. if you do not know, who does? i, i -- that really bothers me. that is the crux of this. isn't it? and you do not know. we are trying to have the hearing about whether you favor your own stuff. and and york -- you are asked that question. you do not know the answer. i want to talk about yelp. i read the testimony last night. i found his story to be compelling. it sounds to me that google first tried to license the content from yelp.

then when they terminated that contract, they tried to buy the company. when they refused, googles started taking the reviews and showing them on a google. we will hear from him soon but i wanted to give viewed a chance to respond to some of the points. it did you get a chance to look at the exhibit text >> in general terms, yes. i am generally familiar with yelp. >> they contend that even now consumers cannot find links to yelp in the merged results. he says that "it is impossible for competitors to be displayed as prominently as it google itself even if the algorithm rates and higher." q think that is a fair

characterization? >> i generally disagree. he will have an opportunity to say what he would like in a minute. the background is they have been a partner for many years. they have always been highly ranked in our search results. some years ago we decided to work on a product based translocation. the idea was to create a hub of information around a place. information about things on that map. a restaurant, a store. given that we search this information we also took some of its of the results along with many others and put those into the web results. those became known as -- today. our competitors also have a similar offering. if there is confusion as to why we need the page, think about a

mobile device. if you're of a faun, it will be difficult for you to go through the links. but if you have a map, that makes sense. in this case, i felt that they would be happy with us pointing to their site and using a few of those reviews because we had those in the index. then sending traffic to them. but they were not happy with that. so we took them out of the pages. if you look you will see they are not in there. you have google reviews and stuff like that. and we bought a company to do something similar. how this is not a case of generic ranking. it is about us creating these pages and getting information to solve the problem. >> i would like to ask one short question and hopefully go to a second round. it is a googled using yelp's

content to drive content to google? >> i am not aware of any. >> cried tip. -- thank you. >> thank you and for having this hearing which i think is important. thank you for being here. we welcome you here. i want to join my colleagues who have remarked a on what a tremendous success story to will is. a great american success story. i have a form to no conclusions whatsoever as to any of the questions you have been asked that may relate to the concerns that have been expressed. those concerns focus on the size and market power of google and

whether it is of a scope and scale that invokes certain responsibilities under our law and whether or not google has complied with those responsibilities. there is no question about the fact that googled is the in the search market. it outsizes its nearest competitor which has less than 30% of the market compared to europe to 85% more in searches. an even higher share in advertising revenues. and that the trend, will be toward even more sizable shares in the search market. your nearest competitor is losing $2 billion a year.

google made $29 billion in 2010. i think that the dynamic is best summarized by your own vice president of product management who said "it is not your voice but it speaks to the dynamic in the market." more users, more information, more advertisers, more users. it is a beautiful thing. lather, rinse, repeat, that is what i do for a living. the hearing and the testimony and a lot of what has been written has any allegations. they are only allegations. they have not been proven about

coopting content. senator franen rai -- franken raised some claims. drawing on the lessons you have learned, can you suggest measures to be taken at this point to promote competition, to dispel those allegations, and, perhaps, anticipate some of the momentum toward government and a veteran -- intervention? i ask this in the spirit of trying to avoid government regulation and intervention. in my view, some of the companies who occupy your chair have been their own worst enemy

in that regard. your frank acknowledgement about a google speaks tried to do voluntarily what is in the consumer's best interest because competition is in a consumer's best interest before there is intervention by a government agency. >> my general answer would be them making the internet when guarantees strong competition. i am understand your asking a more narrow question but there are many start-ups that are potential future competitors in. for example, there are websites the nursing half of the traffic from facebook. google is a small component of the traffic they get. there is every reason to believe that a broad strategy to promote competition, and the ipo market

is one of the hottest. i would argue that the levers are necessary to guarantee the outcome you're looking for are already in place. >> let me be more narrow. right now, as i understand it, certain properties, maps, are at the top of the search results regardless of the formula or methodology. they are at the top. wood and eliminating that preference be a step in the rights direction? >> i would disagree. it would be bad for consumers because consumers wanted a map. now by virtue of such a role you're forcing people to do to steps. the second is that it would allow competitors to offer that a without google being able to do that. what i am worried about his such a restriction would prevent us

from completing our primary mission. >> are there other steps you would suggest? if we were a court and liability were found, and the question were remedies, what would you suggest? i do not mean it to put you in this position. a very, very hypothetical questions. >> we had a conversation about how we would behave to avoid being evil when we were big. we believe that we have made those changes. we created the david -- data liberation front so we cannot capture or hold your data. if you wish to go to a competitor, bing, we make it easy for you to do that.

we think we have done the things that would be appropriate to make sure we are in a competitive box. we are open to suggestions. in a competitive market like we're seeing and with the expansion of choices on the internet, the global playing field that is the internet is the real protection. and the huge amounts of money and that is going to these spaces. >> thank you 4 responses. i hope there will be a second round. >> a second round of the three minutes. google runs between 65% of all internet searches and about 95% on mobile devices. it has over 75% of all search

advertising revenue in the united states. this kind of a market share is considered to constitute monopoly power. does the group will recognize it as a dominant power? special rules apply that there is conduct a that must be refrained from. >> will understand the role we play in information. we understand your role. we are satisfied that the things we are doing are within the legal grounds of what we're doing. in a competitive market, we are focused on consumers treated the answer is we understand the role we have to play. we are kept honest all the time. not just by your good graces but

to the press and the many people who look at what we do. >> he recognize that -- you recognize that your market share constitutes a monopoly. a special power monopoly firm. you recognize your in that area? >> i would agree we are in that area. with apologies, my understanding of a monopoly is that is a judicial process. i would have to let the judges to such a finding. we see ourselves as having a special responsibility to debate the issues. >> our hearing is a focused on issues of business and business competition but also influence. on the news information. this points out how important it

is we preserve competition in the internet search market. google is the primary way to search for news and information on the internet. if you're only competitor were to go away, google would be the only a search engine to find this kind of information. given its dominant share, who is a gate keeper with enormous power. those searching the internet for information that today could get links to my opening statement, your testimony, your critics and the next panel as the first search results. and more people searching for information on president obama could get links to the white house website or a critical column on the president. you would argue that you return the most relevant results first for any information quarried.

free of any political bias but is this possible? there must be some decision as to whether my opening statement is at the top of the information results. is it possible to have an unbiased search results for a news information? should we be troubled by any company like yours having huge, huge influence over a news and information citizens find on the internet? doesn't this a demonstrate the absolute need for competition in this area? >> as i said, we are in favor of competition. there is a lot of evidence that much of the online news is being consumed within the social networks. we would want to add that into the framework. with the question of ranking

algorithms, it is ultimately a judgment what comes first or second. because we have so many things, it would not be possible to explain why one a link about this testimony and my testimony is higher or lower. it is a complex formula involving influence and who points to whom and the way in which it is expressed using a prepared -- proprietary logarithm. it is the best we can do. we do occasionally make mistakes. >>, i want to make clear and get a statement on the record, does google give any preference to its on listings? places or shopping results in its own natural search results?

>> the reason i was confused as the word preference. we have a product called universal search. it chooses how to organize the page. that decision includes many components in the natural surge. when we think you're looking for a product we will give this product search insert that you showed earlier. if you go through that search and, it takes you to other web sites that want to sell products. we give preference in the context of our best judgment as to the sum of what the person wants to do. >> i think that helps answer the question. it gives preference to those, not to your own and camera sales

but to another page. or maybe not cameras but advertisements. >> in that case i do not think there is any advertising component. but i take your point. in preparing for this hearing, i was uncertain as to what might be the full extent of my concerns regarding your practices. some of my fears have been confirmed as a result of our conversation. i would like to summarize what some of those are. i am troubled by some of your practices. inserting its own offerings in the midst of a natural algorithm results. usually in the most prominent position and with the most eye- catching display. my concern is three fault -- and this practice seems to leverage

your primary search dominance. it gives you an advantage. no other business or a search site can hope to compete on anything close to a level playing field when google uses its market power to disadvantaged online competitors. this same practice presents a clear and inherent conflict of interest. rather than acting as an honest broker of information, you have a strong financial incentive to channel users to your own listings. as the vice president noted, "we ultimately have a monetary incentive to drive people to those pages. " i worry this practice harms consumers.

manipulating search results violates the legitimate expectations. by a disadvantage in competing services it may reduce consumer choice and stifle innovation. i am troubled by what we have learned today. actionyou'll take swift to resolve these concerns. mr. franken. >> i think i am the chairman and now. for a while and then he will be back. mobilehift to talk about search. the internet is going to mobile and searches will be going to mobil. i enter stand you control about 97% of mobile service. you're the default search

engine on all apple funds. >> that is correct. >> you also own android which is the largest mobile operating system. this type of dominance in means and that you control what consumers use when they purchase and android phone. there was a study last week that said the dominant applications on android are owned by google. only facebook made it into the top six. i have no doubt the part of the reason is that grew will create superior products. -- google creates superior products. what comes pre-loaded on a phone in tax -- impacts.

are all phones loaded with maps and google plus? >> they do not. >> to many of them? >> my estimate that a slight majority come with it. on the order of two-thirds. >> if an equipment manufacturer makes android phones for you, does not want to pre-load google applications on its devices, can they do that? >> absolutely free . >> if i wanted to use yelp, is it easy for me to delete google places on my phone? >> google places is a result

from searching. if you used -- if she did not use it, and you would not have it all. yelp is available to all of the browsers. there are always available. >> i am talking about a dozen application. >> google places is not an application. it is a result from search. >> what apps are there? >> gmail, chat, those kind of things. if i may, what you're getting at is -- >> tell me what i am thinking. [laughter] >> i'm trying to be helpful. many android partners combine google surged, -- search, and

apps into a package. in that case we do revenue share with them on the googles search. >> has my time is up. senator blumenthal. >> i have reached no conclusions and i will be submitting other questions in writing because we may not have time for a third round. i'm sure if you'll be happy to be relieved of that spot. and i have been trying to sink of the analogy to what the ordinary consumer can understand as what to google does. as they sat here, the racetrack analogy. you run the race track, you own the eight -- racetrack, for a long time you had no horses. now you have forces and you have control over or those horses are placed.

your horses seem to be winning. what a lot of these questions raise is the potential conflict of interest to use a pejorative but not necessarily to be critical. you may have a great product. you put them first. you may regard that placement as a service to consumers. inevitably, that will stimulate the kind of criticism that has brought you here today. >> it will not surprise that i disagree with your analogy. >> i invite your disagreement. >> internet is the platform. you can think of google as a gps. one of the most important things

with respect to all of the complaints, googled does nothing to block access to any of the competitors and sources of information. we encourage it. and all the cases where we come to an answer we also show all of the other possible answers. we try to be as inclusive as possible. we need to be able to be free to get to what we think is the best answer to the query of the person. if we can do that with zero clicking, that is better for the consumer. >> to return to my analogy, there is no allegation that you exclude those of other horses. there is no allegation that you would misguide a consumer to go on the wrong direction on the

internet. but there is something different when you own a place and the directions happen to put the consumer at the place you own as opposed to some other place tha tmig -- that might result in the consumer going to another place. i realize we are oversimplifying a difficult area. but i invite your comments and disagreement. >> the most important thing is to come up with the quickest answer the best. this is the best we know how to do it. we have to concerns your describing in our minds as we make these decisions. we really detest the stock. we believe this is the best choice for consumers.

>> my time has expired. i think the acting chairman. >> to carry your analogy one step further, your metaphor, you might have been saying you think google might be doping courses. -- the horses. [laughter] >> i did not say that. >> i guess i misunderstood. >> i was thinking about what the questions have been focused on, how the search is work and how you end up on the next stage. have you thought about a more transparency? if there are more things you could do to explain why this is happening and when there will be a change. >> that is an excellent point. we do a lot of tools for web sites so they can understand how

they are ranked. we do not do enough. i agree with your questions. there is a limit to how much transparency we can provide. when is that our algorithms are viewed as proprietary. they are our innovation. the second is that if we are completely transparent, they will be heavily game to buy sites that try to spam eyes. we're experiences where they latch onto a behavior and manipulate the index to produce a false answer. there is a limit to how transparent we wish to be with respect to our ranking of rhythm. i agree we can do a better job of describing the change. that is exactly right. >> one last question, online users are your customers.

also the businesses that advertise are your customers. does the google needs to be careful that the protection of the users does not come into conflict with the business interest of those that advertising on the web? >> we debate this quite a bit. we have a detailed privacy policy with regard to user data. there have been suggestions that would misuse people's private data, searchers trees. we said no to those. it is important that the history of searches, what they do, is not used without their permission in these advertising products. you will find that we will be one of the exemplars of that principle. as this becomes -- a lot of people will face this question. >> thank you very much.

>> we are now going to transitions to the second panel. thank you for being here and for your testimony. i am glad my colleague from minnesota brought up privacy. i am the chairman on privacy and a lot. i would like -- and the law. i would like to, we will keep a record open for 20 days. oh, one day. one week. it is either 10 days, one week. 20 days. [laughter] i am the chairman right now and i think we will do one week which is the proper answer. he apologized for not being here for the conclusion of your testimony but was needed for votes in the appropriations

committee. we thank you. since we are open for a week, i also plan on the submitting a few questions on privacy and, uh, and intellectual theft. i really thank you and would like to call the second panel. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before your panel. we will be happy to answer any other questions and clarify any of the questions that require it. >> you will have that opportunity. the record will be open for a week. we now call the second panel. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> said the hearing will now be moving to our second panel. the first will be thomas. he is a partner at covington. he served as assistant attorney general for antitrust in the u.s. justice department from 2005 to 2008. he represents the fair research coalition. next will be the ceo of the

nexttag. he served as president and ceo of a leapfrog enterprises. next will be jeremy. he is a co-founder and ceo of yelp. finally we will hear from susan. she is a partner at -- where she serves as co-chair in the antitrust practice. she serves as a director of the competition and she represents google on antitrust matters. we're happy to have you here today. we will start with you for five minutes. >> thank you. it is good to see you again. thank you for holding this hearing. i would like to start with a general observation.

i was heartened initially by the statement that google get it. to be frank with you, based on my experience in the private sector and the government, they do not get a. companies that get it will step up to the plate, it meant to reality, and focus on the real issues. google willthe first element isa dominant company? is this committee recognizing that they have monopoly power and search advertising. you do not have to take my word for. we have conducted extensive investigations in this area.

if you have a share of the market with barriers to entry, you have a monopoly power. those areas to not come from the cost of cooking to another side. the barriers come from building an effective search engine. you need the scale of traffic that google has to tune the engine. it is an ongoing process. nobody else is going to catch google even if you had access today. they have market power. istheir dominance is expanding. mobil is an important area.

it is over the android system. it is rapidly becoming the mobile operating some. from a sherman act, a monopoly minutes perspective is their problem deck? if they were engaging in any improper conduct, it would go on. it is not as google does anything that is good that they do a lot of things that are good. what they do not do is step up to the plate and acknowledge there are some things after highly problematic.

we knowledge that google places it above the national search results. they have an economic interest. what is in the middle is not all -- algorithmic. there are multiple links that will take you to a global place. by failing to disclose if they can mislead them into going into a site that they think we're doing because we are all conditioned to think what is at the top of the page.

it tells and it is the most relevant to our query. it is not an algorithmic results. in entered operating system, there is indication they're using compatibility. there is some of the other contact that google is engaged. it is in the marketplace. i believe it is important it plays a role. if google expand and controls more of the internet, there will be increasing pressure for more government regulation that may be more burdensome and difficult. thank you.

>> thank you. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here today. these are important issues to the commerce industry. tens of thousands of merchants list their products on our site. our visitors use our comments to find the right products and compare prices and services from many merchants,. about 70% are smaller ones who you have never heard about 30 million shoppers a month in the u.s. use our site. we spend over critics and over 1 million of sales to our partners every year. google has been an outstanding partner to us for many years. be here to say what must said.

it was 10 years or so ago when i first worked with a small company that no one had heard of with a funny name from the world of mathematics, google. they're the only company who let me advertise. there was an innovative bidding contest that allows them to get access to a ranking process that left all websites be visible. it is also available to the founders of my company. the began to invest around be the knowledge -- a round of the technology care.

advertisers cannot get locked out of the top advertising spots. this led google stand out from other search engines. search was actually competitive. others build around those ideas. they believed google would live up to their end of the bargain. google abandon those core principles when they started interviewing -- interfering with profit growth. google does not play fair. google said competition is one click away. that is not a question. it should they be able to use their market power to make it difficult for users to find us? the they say they treat all sites fairly. we beat -- we built our side around it. that is not what they do. we can help companies that cannot possibly invest in the

statistical methods required to be profitably is successful with google and to sell their products from cameras to apparel. tried out some time. we will surprise you with what a good site it is. consider a merchant in minnesota. for about 50 cents they get a customer directly to their stores website that is highly likely to buy the trailer jack they were searching for. there's the way for the merchant to put an ad in the local newspaper or get that customer or the same customer from google on their own. it is a good deal from the merchant. we are appreciative. they're not innovating now. the help desk for their business but now they're talking it after we invested hundreds of millions

of dollars to perfect it. they are politely and assuredly moving us aside. when you search for products, google is not a search engine any more. a search engine organizes and presents information that is hard to find in unbiased way. google today does not present the information that users want. it presents the information that google wants you to see based on its commercial interests. the company that dominates the information highway controls all of the digital billboards and off ramps and does not tell the consumer this search favors those preferred vendors, advertisers, and some results may be excluded or obscured. the company that dominates the market has the responsibility to provide fair access.

i hope this committee and google will balance the forces and enable competition to persist. this is a very big deal. we should get it right. we should make it right. thank you very much for your time and attention. >> thank you. thank you. >> i appreciate your interest. i and the ceo of yelp. our mission is to connect people with great local businesses. we shared details of pageantries use -- reviews about businesses in their neighborhood. businesses that provide good service are able to promote themselves on-line. yelp employs 800 people around

the country. 60 million consumers use it every month to decide how and where to spend their hard earned money. the job growth in country relies on small and fast-growing businesses. yelp help them reach new customers by amplifying their positive word about online. this is important because it examines issues that go to the heart of innovation. whether new ideas can compete fairly. in case, i wonder if we would have been able to started today given google's recent actions. let's be clear. google is no longer in the business of sending people on the web. in now hopes to a destination site itself for a vertical market. including news, shopping, travel, and now a local business reviews. not a level playing

field. the experience is telling. google forces review web sites to provide their content for free to benefit google's own competing product. google get its own products preferential treatment. gould began taking are content without permission one year ago. despite public and private protests, and they gave the ultimatum that only a monopolist can give the. you must allow us to use your content to compete against you. as everyone in this room knows, it is equivalent to not existing on the internet. we had no choice. google has softened its stance. what changed? is this an admission of anti-

competitive conduct? perhaps. questionable practices remain. websites in search results take a backseat to google is competing products. this is accomplished by calling special attention to google owned properties their larger graphics, as a replacement and pushing objectively ranked websites down the page. while we are concerned about is that google still longer satisfied with pointing users to the best content. it seems they prefer to send users to the most profitable content on the web which is naturally their own. is it a small business will certification 1 google artificially promote its own property t? this has everything to do with generating more revenue. where is the harm? i live and work on san francisco would sit on the border of silicon valley.

today represents a rare opportunity for the government to protect innovation, allowing a search engine to exploit and extend its dominance. it ensures open and equal competition will foster job growth. it will ensure that the price of internet advertising movie set by the market and not solely by a monopolist. when one company controls the market, it controls consumer choice. if competition were just a click away, why have they invested so heavily to be the default choice in web browsers and mobile phone stacks they're not rigid mobile phones -- and mobile phones?

they're not taking any chances. >> thank you. eric schmidt as me to clarify that yelp is a mobile application. both google places and yelp are mobile applications. >> thank you. >> thank you. from 2001-2005, i have the privilege of serving as a director of the bureau of competition of the trade commission, serving as the antitrust enforcer. we brought more monopolization cases to put a stop to consumer conduct than during any comparable one going back to the late 1970's. as this reflects, i believe there is an important role for

government in enforcing our antitrust laws. it underscored the need for the government to exercise extreme caution before acting against the company for the day-to-day business decisions. these are the hearts of the competition and innovations underline our free-market system. because of a very real risk, extraordinary care must be taken to ensure that government innervation is surely essential. otherwise it is much more likely to harm consumers and to help them. as an attorney based in silicon valley, i believe that the danger of harmful intervention is especially acute in the high- technology sector. deceptive innovations are the rule and not the exception. companies can watch the market positions disappear overnight.

four years ago my state had a 72% share and social networking. today it is a fraction of one%. we all know what happened. in the same length of time, facebook was the most popular destination on the internet was 750 million registered users. the only constant has been changed. the pace of technological innovation has been extraordinary. competition is robust. we have seen the benefit to consumers that this has delivered. development for nearly unimaginable when i started in silicon valley 20 years ago. technologies have been an important part of this american success story. the founders changed the nation of search when they invented the system 13 years ago. running counter many times it appears on the page, it is based

on the idea that the best way to rank of information is based on consumer assessment of the relevance. the core of the success has been that the best search results are the ones that give consumers what they want. google continues to innovate to better satisfy the same users, competing against ever-growing competition, not just from other general search engines but also from cecil networking's -- but also from social networks. because it is free and easy to try different alternatives, users are quick to switch to the sources of information on the internet that they find. it is the easiest to use in the most responsive. there is the single right answer to what is most responsive to

consumer questions. the essence of the competition is to make a judgment about how best to answer the billions of query's that they receive every day. for the government to dictate how google should make those judgments, whether to rank it will be to turn the search service and to a regulated utility. it will make google less responsive to its users. compete every day to provide the fastest and most responsive answers. it has often been the case that they have saw to invoke the antitrust laws to freeze technology. and the late 1970's, the broad antitrust suits.

it provides a major innovation. it will cut into the sales of the drives. even if the innovation seems part of competitors, it is good for consumers. this paves the way for lower costs, better focus and the ibm pc. this has been that there are no artificial restraints that prevents consumers from being able to make choices in the marketplace. it will allow competition. it would act to protect competitors. it has the effect of short circuit team competition.

it protect the anti-competitive process. will be wise remember that lesson. we will have five men around. >> do you consider this a dominant one in the search under antitrust standards tax y? >> -- standards? why? >> yes it is a dominant company with monopoly power. it is mobile advertising and mobile operating systems. it is quickly moving in that direction. i think that they have monopoly

power. there are agencies that looked into this and concluded that. i pick to the words. there are huge barriers to entry to getting into surge. they have a great algorithm. it is very difficult if not impossible for anybody else to catch up with them. >> what are the consequences in your opinion decks is their conduct that may not engage indein? >> there is no doubt that they can harm this. this puts the special response ability on the company to engage in fare competition on the market. audi is specific example. i was offended by one of the

things that chairman smith said. he talked about the issue of scraping content from yelp. he described it that we thought it would be good. then we got a letter. we took it down. that is not what happened. my client has 45 million reviews. it had a very similar problem where it issues reviews. the ceo went to google last year. google said no. the only way we will take that down is if you will never appear anywhere in dominance search engine result. that was a coercive tactics. it was designed to enable google to take their conflict, -- content and use it against them.

i completely agree. the only reason that change at all was this year. within weeks if not days, they started to back down. there is conduct that may not engage in. >> respectfully, i do not believe that google does have monopoly power. i would like to explain why. it is whether it has monopoly power. if it were to raise the price or to exclude competitors, is there

something that causes them to be an able to switch? they can basically get away with that. we can use market shares. the real question is, is there this ability to foreclose competition or to raise prices? >> what i would be looking for is very high market shares sustained over a long time, usually in the 1980's and looking for too many years. i would be looking for indications. there'll be some structural problem. what we actually see is how they're being ranked.

it is why they do not have monopoly power. each of you can test whether you write this. it is free. it is instantaneous to try someone else's results. i doubt you'd never come back to google again. when we are looking for the companies, they have monopoly power. respectfully i would not say that you should trust google. the question is whether you can trust the market and whether there are some kind of impediments to way the market is working to cause consumers to be able to switch.

>> thank you. i have a couple of questions. we make a statement that i find compelling. issei "google already possesses unprecedented power to stifle competition. if for some reason and is not able to address these concerns, there will be pressure to rein in the power of the more direct government regulation. can you tell us more about what you see as a threat? it may cause of the begin elements for them to be subject to intrusive regulation. >> one of the experiences i had

was talking with a number of other jurisdictions such as former countries in asia. it is from a centrally planned economy. you do not need the government to dictate everything that happens. this is part of the way we got to deal regulation. there's a lot of deregulation in the country. it works the other way, two. if google continues to expand and continues to control more of the products and services, you will see pressure. there's already presser for them to regulate the internet.

they are making decisions that i think will be harmful. >> it is a live again to me. my interest is in seeing that actors like google to voluntary action so there's no need for anti-stress enforcement. certainly said there is no cause for or push for intrusive government regulation on the internet. it has remained a relatively government freed. what can they do to forestall the stacksis?

>> they can live up to the words and get it. they can and knowledge they are a dominant country. the second thing they can do is act on that. they can in sheer -- can assure that it is not misleading or deceptive. they can refrain from using content from other sites without their permission or authorization. they can make sure it is really based on prospective criteria. if they take steps like that, i think they would go a long way toward gaining credibility. if we give people who are trusting that they should be trusted. >> we learned that the animating principle of antitrust justice

ought to be consumer welfare. my principal concern is that they may not be with the consumer. can you explain the particular ways you think kugels actions make up a harm to the consumer? >> they are an advertising company. they made $30 billion lester and advertising. given that they are dominant, and the proportion is already a monopoly. to the extent they are maintaining the power, that is money they have to spend that consumers paid for. it will flow through to the goods and services you buy.

if google is the only company who is innovating these important areas, we lose the benefit of competition and innovation. that is what will drive consumer spending in the long term. >> i would like to ask a question. market givenoday's the competition.

>> i would find something else to do. there's agile and level playing field only began. -- there was actually a level playing field only began. i had done a search looking for a doctor in san francisco. i found no relevant information. one that accept my insurance. we found that traffic was bringing in and bringing more users. now with google taking a summit of the realistic, there's no way i would start fresh. we have been looking for seven years. we got a lot of traction. we are not going anywhere. i would not even consider it. >> and not think we could do it. our business requires merchants to want to participate because we have a lot of shoppers on our site.

we simply cannot do it with the google that exist today. it was related to private interests. on the right half of the paid were paid advertisers compete is beginning to be dominated by unique ad placements which competitors such as ourselves cannot even purchase. it to be impossible to get them to participate in it today. >> thank you. >> this is regarding what happens with the history between your two companies. wises the fishing correct? >> no. >> of the habit to share the time line quickly.

in 2005, google came to us looking at are content and saying they wanted to include it page. we said we would try it out. we realize it was not helping. it is treating a potential competitor. we did our thing. there were rumors of potential attempted acquisitions. immediately after that, are content with seven out of the local property suddenly found its way back in without their permission. before there was a written license for that content. in 2010 it wishes there. we immediately registered our complaint.

there's a lot of dialogue. they took care of information they needed. they pull one of the web pages. they used it in a totally separate property. >> speaking of google places, and ask him whether it was an act, he said it was not. now he is correcting himself. you said in a monopoly is something over 80%. on mobil, it is 97 cents. -- 97%.

>> there a couple of big problems with that number. >> you brought that the number. if you have smart phones, you may find this is your own experience. this number excludes applications. this sum was to go find information on their phones today. >> de google spend money to be the default? >> those numbers come from the

fact that google prevailed and that contract. every step back and think about it. >> did you answer my question? apple to be the default search engine? >> google certainly entered and. -- in. it not survive me urging surprise me. >> why did you think it is not worth anything? >> it was a ball not an exclusive. i think it would take about 20 seconds. the real question from the competition perspective is --

>> keep going. the continue as long as you like. there's no reason to think that apple did not pick that based on the best policy. having picked on google, they have that kind of market, you have someone who is a stand in for consumers. >> has google ever collected content? >> i do not know if it shows on

his chart and not, but if you run a google search, what you would typically see is a liner two that tells you something about a site. the purpose is to enable you as a consumer to tell whether that is the site you want to click through. google has not ever unlawfully taken content that is not permitted. >> have a co opted the content? we just heard the testimony under oath. it is really a question of whether you deny the testimony. >> to the best of my knowledge what they're describing is he wanted to have this.

people like having this written about them. this is what drives traffic to their site. --s talking my managing talking about managing this. >> let me move on to your contention. google is not dominant to the point it has a responsibility under the sherman act ind? >> other just addressing the question of the initial one. it has monopoly power. i do not believe it has monopoly power. >> because its share of internet searches and advertising is not in excess of 80%? >> i do not believe the market

is probably limited to general search engines. >> you think it should be beyond a search? >> i think it should be beyond general search. >> what if a court were to disagree with the dayou? and to find anticompetitive allegations had been made. what would your remedy be? >> what would you recommend to the court? >> i think it would depends on what all wrongdoing they found. >> anticompetitive conduct such as excluding competing sites or placing them lower on the search analysis are coopting or scraping whatever term you want

to use. would it be a relief against the practice? would you advise some sort of structural remedy? >> i am afraid that problem has too many hypothetical as. >> in order to avoid a continuing potential series of government intervention, which of us would really favor, and no way prejudge what they should be, what would you suggest in the way of voluntary session? >> i represented netscape many years ago. it is challenging some of microsoft's conduct.

it was issued there. if they found that microsoft was intimidating. they never got to market. out want to have to be. they were preventing consumer choice. >> you do not think it is relevant that the nearest competitor has less than 30% boozing money in consumers' -- losing money and consumers only put away the very strong barriers t? >> is the most narrow market.

it is declining as a big red flag. even beyond that, one of the markets that i had to look at was whether it constitutes as a separate market. that was an empirical question. did they compete to the boutiques in the mall? we concluded that even though there were two that look the same, what was constraining was the mall. the think about where you would go if you're looking to buy a product, of the release surprise if you did not think about going to amazon. amazon is a special search engine that has three times the number of projects searches. if you talk to local

advertisers, it is interesting. what local advertisers tell you is the number one place you have to be is facebook. that is where most local advertising is happening. the platforms of the future for shopping are going to be facebook and twitter. when you look at what is the relevant market and water the constraints we don't want to look at search engines but you want to look at whether there are other competitors. >> my time has expired. i may have some more and rioting. >> mobile more rounds of questions.

>> they go by interesting this into their web browser. why shouldn't matter? are you being cheated by the search engine? >> this is something we have studied. people type in a washing machine. they do not typing google projects. it had been watching machine. the first half of the google page begins to lay out. it begins to preference advertisers are projects that have a preferential advertising relationship.

lahood happens to your business and did what happens to your business it can no longer appear at the top of this? >> 65% of our search referrals come through google today. these are most that they have heard of. they're really perfected the marketing and use of the google platform. the downside is people have not heard of us. if we cannot utilize that platform, that didn't care our business. >> what would happen to your business if you lost? >> about 75% of our traffic is

through google won there are another. 50% of that is around there. the other 25% a qualifying their search. they're adding that key words. it would be completely devastating. >> basing it is completely permissible tax -- are you saying it is completely permissible? >> is whether they have the ability to provide the answers that consumers want. what google does it is constrained. it is the answer they thing is there. unless it does, people will be

going somewhere else. if google think it has the best answer, it will be displaying that. it is going to drift down over time. to go will be ranking higher. -- google will be ranking higher. >> thank you. i wanted to ram rambus has a i'm a firm believer in the free market. i am a lifelong fan. and has got once drove across town to hear him speak. should not be surprising i'm focusing on consumer welfare. it is always his emphasis. what does google currently do

the most harm consumers ta? what can they do to help alleviate any problems they might have done? >> thank you. what can google do? the key would be separating out distribution from its own property. this is the most important issue. this showed that therthey are differentiating themselves. if it is not servicing that, it is taking out this. this is a big problem.

>> i would say it is really a level playing field. if it were happening, i would not be here today. there are a few things they could just as they really wanted to. they clearly do not agree. they are going to create a link anywhere on their page. it should be nextag's ability that we can get access to that link. today that is not the case for the top half of the page. for the best at, we cannot even compete for. those units that you pulled out that our top dead center, those are not labeled as commercially preferential to google. not everybody can be there. consumers do not know what is

behind the scenes. they'll never find the benefits. the first half of the pages where everything happens. i does of this as a level playing field. it is a simple principle. if they get it, they make it happen. >> thank you. >> thank you. you were very closely on the microsoft case. there are many parallels between that case and what google is doing today. he may not agree with that. i think you would agree that it is not enough for google just to say trust us. they need to explain what they are doing and why. and the microsoft case, a

committee was created to help monitor and enforce the obligations in final court order. they have not pilots a suit against google. i'm not saying they should. i do see some merit in google taking the initiative to create a committee of technologists and other small businesses that could review of rhythm tweaks -- algorithm tweaks to make sure it is treating everyone equally. what you think of that? >> i would have to defer to the company in terms of whether that is a good business idea. i would be extremely concerned about that is just another word for regulation. i do not know if you had a chance to see mr. barnett.

he had to search for milwaukee doctors. he showed a big place at the top. i would encourage you to run do --ame search on yaw tyaw yahoo! there is research that microsoft and google has done that 58 some of all users actually want an answer. one thing you probably heard is that google only returns links. microsoft returns answers. google cannot compete or if you have to go there and regulatory committee before it can be responsive to that demand. >> i guess the suggesting something voluntary. >> because consumers can

switch, their incentive is to do exactly what you're describing. >> they have no incentive. >> to do what i described as credits they have one to do what consumers want. i think there may be a misunderstanding as to what happens if you click on one of those places. they have advertising revenue on to a page. it is search results were consumers go. two-thirds of the time they actually click through to the web site for the company they are searching for. the only click seven some of the time on the actual google adds. google is losing money in the short term.

it is competing with yah hoo and everyone else. the way you get the consumer back is by providing those answers. saying by doing this voluntarily he can do it. >> that is what you can do. >> aside to go over time. there is a misunderstanding. to treat a technical committee to review what they do the work on it. that is lots of is doing. comex what i meant to say was that they actually run live tests as the guinea pigs. they will do side-by-side.

i am not sure i understand it. >> you work with microsoft. do you know that they comply with the settlement and that they formed a technical committee to review this. he said there would be regulation. i said they did it voluntarily. this is the strain of what we're talking about. >> that is my confusion. i think google already changes its algorithm 500 times a year. i think a of a committee would be too slow. >> thank you. in fairness to mr. schmidt, i understood his testimony to be

that he felt google did have a special responsibility by virtue of its size. i want to express my appreciation for his acknowledgement. i hope his receptivity to do better. it to distinguish him the have had very cigna began antitrust enforcement experience comparable to hers. i wonder if he could tell us what you think. he had no response ability to answer this question. if you were in that position, would you bring that case tax which began an investigation? >> thank you.

and the start by saying in that regard, i do not think anyone would accuse me of having been overly aggressive or prematurely but there was a case that we looked at, while i will not go into the details, and that dealt with google, who wanted to enter a transaction with yahoo! the paid search and advertising markets, and google abandoned that transaction in the face of representation from the department that we were about to file a suit to challenge in court, so i can tell you that based on my experience, there is at least one time when i think they crossed the line. earlier this year, they acquired ita, which is online travel surge asset. that is another issue which i will not go into, but i would say that the department would

like to challenge that, which they did. in this context, i am more than willing to say that i would certainly open an investigation, and, indeed, that is a really important point here. a lot of the questions, many of the things we are talking about having to deal with the deceptive display have nothing to do with the search algorithm, but there have been questions about what does googled do with this search algorithm. to the best of my knowledge, nobody outside of gogol has actually ever looked at it to determine what is going on, and i am not talking about posting the algorithm on the internet. i am talking about in a confidential investigation enabling a responsible antitrust enforcement agency to gather the facts, and i would certainly want to gather the facts, and i would have concern that there is harm to consumers. >> i thank you for your

testimony. i invite all to comment on these, with related questions, but most especially on the question that has been raised as to what google might voluntarily do, because certainly enforcement it -- enforcement, as both you and ms. creighton know, they are blunt and in exact instruments of protecting competition and far better to have voluntary situations -- rather than complaints about antitrust violations, and to emphasize, i form no conclusions myself, whether that is worth. thank you for being here, and thank you for sharing the perspectives.

>> thank you, senator bloom and fall. today, this demonstrates the importance of global as an internet search firm has a profound effect on the ability of businesses to compete, as well as the ability to find the best products and services at the best prices. we need to continue to consider whether global merely does its best, with star competition in its favor, as its critics argue. we will continue to examine these issues. we very much appreciate your being here. you have added much information and light to this very important topic. and this hearing is now closed. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> on c-span2 nights, the house debates a temporary spending measure for the government for the next two nights -- on c-span tonight. and google chairman eric schmidt answers questions at a senate hearing. the joint deficit-reduction committee, also known as the super committee, when they meet tomorrow, they will be looking at changes to the tax code and methods to raise revenue. this will begin at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and c- span.org. >> william jennings bryan, one of the best known speakers of his time and one of the first to campaign from the backs of railroad cars and automobiles. he ran for president three times and lost, but he changed

history. he is one of the 14 featured in a new c-span's series, "the contenders." learn more about the series and the upcoming shows at c- span.org/contenders. >> the joint chiefs of staff have agreed to remove the question regarding one's sexual orientation from future versions of the enlistment application, and it will not be asked in the interim. >> this week marked the end of do not ask, do not tell, the policy that kept openly gay personnel from serving in the military and more than 14,000 can reapply for reinstatement. this is all on line, archived in searchable at the c-span video library. >> on wednesday, the house looked at a federal bill to fund programs through november 18. democrats objected to a

provision in the bill that would cut energy department programs to partially offset spending on disaster relief. the funding measure was ultimately rejected in a 195-203 vote. here is the debate that led up to that vote. it is one hour 20 minutes. mr. rogers: mr. speaker, i rise today to bring to the floor the continuing appropriations resolution to keep the federal government operating until november 18 ofhis year, for procedural reasons. this is being done as an amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 2608, to speak passage through the senate at their request. but in substance this is the same as the continuing resolution, h.j.res. 79, that i introduced on september 14. this c.r., mr. speaker, will give congress the time needed

to complete fiscal year 2012 appropriations and adequately fund vital government programs and services while working to put federal spending on a more sustainable course. just as significantly, this bill provides desperately needed funding for disaster recoverynd relief. i would have preferred to complete the appropriations process in regular order, and i believthe house made great strides in doing so. the appropriations committee moved on 11 of the 12 annual appropriations bills and six bills have cleared the house. but we still need time to collaborate with our colleagues in the senate in order to complete this work and a short-term bill will allow us to do so. as we saw last year and into

the spring, the threat of a government shutdown causes dangerous economic instability. and at this precarious time, we need to bolster the american public confidence that their representatives in washington are working for them and not let politics come before people. the c.r. continues government operatio at a re of $1.043 trillion. the total amount agreed to by the congress and the white house in the budget control act. it's clean of most policy provisions to ensure swift passage, but we provided small changes for safety, security and continuity of essenal programs. for instance, we've extended federal flood insurance

availability and the availability of defense survival equipment for our troops abroad. in addition, this c.r. will help meet the needs of the thousands of families, businesses and communities burdened by recent natural disasters, by providing an immediate $1 billion in emergency 2011 funding now as well as an additional $2.65 billion for the next year. we're helping our citizens get back on their feet. the $776 billion in the bill for the fema disaster relief fund which is $276 million more than the president or the senate proposed is time sensitive and critical. that fund is now below $250 million and is running out of money fast. unless we provide additional

funding within a matter of days the disaster relief fund will soon be empty, leaving millions of people in the lurch. the $1 billion in emergency funding for fiscal year 2011 has been offset by a cut to the department of energy's advanced technology vehicle manufacturing loan program which has more than $4 billion in unspent idle funds in the pipeline. it's been there for three years. now is the time to use those idle dollars for true and immediate purposes, aiding our llow in their times of greatest need as they cope with the aftermath of wildfires, tornadoes, earthquakes and hurricanes and unprecedent -- an unprecedented string of disasters in this country. now, the notn of offsetting emergency spending has gotten a lot of attenon as of late.

let me be very clear. offsetting emergency spending is not a unique practice. in fact, over the last 10 years the congress has used offsets in at least 15 of 30 emergency supplemental spending bills. half of them. in total the congress has pass over $60 billion in emergency offss in the last 10 years, most of which had a large amount of support on both sides of the aisle, including the support of our former speaker pelosi. the loan program used as an offset in this bill has had excess funds for years, and taking the money will not negatively affect that program. all entities in final loan stages will still get the

funding they've worked for. furthermore, this offset is identical to the one already passed by the house in june as part of the homeland securit appropriations bill. we've already voted for it. in addition, the committee will continue to consider additional saster funding over the next few weeks as we bring the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process to a close, hopefully by november 18, including reviewing estimates that are still coming in from recent disasters so that families and communities can get the assistance they need while making sure that every dollar is well spent. . the budget control act, which both houses of congress and the white house agreed to provide for disaster funding in that capacity. but with respect to this continuing resolution, at this

time, we do not have all the necessary information on the cost of the recent disasters, nor the time toork out a final comprehensive agreement with the white house and senate. as members of this body know back in their home districts, the fema administration works to survey the damage and report that to the white house who in turn makes a request to congress for disaster funds. that's the normal procedure in which we're involved now and i assure the members that as we get those estimates from the white house in the next few weeks and months, they will be addressed and moneys will be avaible. therefore weust meet the most immediate need and provide additional funding now for fema to keep that program going for the next several months. that's what this continuing resolution dews and why we, the

house and senate, have to pass this bill immediately. this c.r. lives up to the guidelines set in the budget control act as well as our commitment to responsible and reduced levels of spending. we can right our fiscal ship while still supporting essential government programs and services and disaster aid and with this in mind, it is my intention that congress complete the fiscal year 2012 appropriations work without any further delay. the sooner we pass this c.r., the sooner we can focus on long-term appropriations legislation and get it done before november 18. so i urge myolleagues in both chambers to support this bill so we can send it to the president as soon as possible. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from washington.

mr. mcdermott: i rise in reluctant -- mr. dicks: i rise in reluctant opposition to the continuing resolution. for the most part, it is a clean c.r., it provides funding at $1.03 trillion through november 18. the amount reflects the budget control act cap on f.y. 2012 appropriations. the c.r. continues funding, has provide -- as provided in f.y. 2011 with a 1 .503 across the board cut to come down from159 to 1043. the c.r. adds a handful of anomalies requested by the administration through o.m.b., including provisions to cut back on overseas contingency operation funds from the level of 11 down to the level that

was passed in the defense appropriations bill which is approximately 118. authorized d.h.s. workn national special security events ex-tends flood insurance and delays the postal service obligation. the last pvision will allow mail service to continue while congress pursues legislative reforms. the matter that concerns me and the democratic caucus is the way the majority has provided disaster relief funding. fema's disaster relief funds precarioly short on money in f.y. 2011. americans are trying to rebuild their lives after the devastating effect of floods, wild firesnd hurricanes in a record year of natural disasters. and fema is running out of resources to help them. fema has deferred funding for

all ng-term rebuilding projects to focus on immediate needs. the administration requested a $500 million supplemental appropriation for the remaining days in the fiscal year. they requested 2011 emergency funds. they did not recommend an offset. this has been the practice for supplemental disaster relief. since 2002, congress appropriated $95 billion in supplemental disaster relief. all of it was designated as an emergency and none of it was offset. some other emergencies may have been paid for during the clinton administration, however, during the bush administration, this was not so for disaster relief. her categories of emergency spending and other

supplementals that were offset, but not disaer relief. for fiscal year 2002 through 2006, the president -- president bush requested supplemental disaster relief funding eight times. each of the eight times was designated as an emergency and none were offset. with republicans in the majority, some of the bush emergency disaster relief bills without offsets were approved by voice vote and some were considered under unanimous consent. nonetheless, house republicans today insist on departing from this practice. they take $1.5 billion from the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing program at the department of energy to pay for $1 billion in disaster relief. disaster and emergency relief. we have discussed compromise with the other side, they have been unwilling to accept our

suggestions. the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing program was started in 2008 to reinvigorate american manufacturing. to date, this program has awarded $3.5 billion of credit subsidy to promote energy efficient advanced vehicles and their component parts. the department of energy estimates that loan guarantees have created or maintained in total 39,000 jobs in california, delaware, illinois, indiana, kentucky, ohio, michigan, missri, and tennessee. some have suggested that this program has been slow to spend emergency funding provided in the f.y. 2009 c.r. i say the loan review process is and ought to be strenuous.

one company, tesla, originally applied under a different loan program in 2006 and received an atvm loan in 2010. it requires four years of due diligence to review to qualify for the loan and having read many of the press releases that went out when there was another d.o.e. program that was not -- that had ran into difficulties, i didn't note anybody there saying we shouldn't take time for due diligence. due diligence is required. by the way, the company in questi, tess la, employed -- tesla, employed about 400 workers before reiving the loan. today they have 1,400 employees in the fields of engineering, research and development, design, manufacturing, assembly, maintenance, service, sales, and support. the atvm program has an

additional 18 loan applications in progress that are projected to create 50,000 to 60,000 more jobs in total in california, florida, illinois, indiana, louisiana, michigan, missouri, and ohio. one pending application would support investment at 11 plants in illinois, indiana, michigan, and ohio. the company employs over 56,000 workers and they're adding nearly 9,000 new workers since 2009. some of the jobs will be at risk by using this offset. this is not the time to put american manufacturing jobs at risk. if you want to make it in america, you can't take away this funding. if there's one thing we've learned on the economic

forefront, it's that we need a growth policy, we don't need a cut policy. cut and grow just ain't so. and i would point out that we need to get people back to work, we need -- and the way you to that is programs like this that are going to hire people instead of fire people. we have been doing a lot of firing and it hasn't worked. when are we going to wake up? when is the majority party going to realize that we've got to do something to create growth and stimulate the economy and put people back to work? the only way we're going to get the deficit down is to bring unemployment down. this is an employment program, it should be supported. we should defeat the continuing resolution, and come up with either take this out or come with another offset that

doesn't hurt job creation in our country. i reserve my balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from kentucky. >> i yield mylf two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. rogers: the gentleman mentioned we had not used justify sets to -- offsets to fund disaster relief. i beg to difference. 2001, emergency supplemental offset, 2002, emergency supplemental offset, 2004, disaster relief for wild fire and others, offset. in 2005, offset for relief for the tsunami, in 2006, relief for katrina offset in 2008, disaster relief and recovery, $20 million in offsets and i

could go on. there are many times when we have used the offsets to pay for supplementals. in fact, over the last 10 years, 15 of the 30 emergency spending bills and supplementals were offset. now on this justify set that's been mentioned, over $4 billion sitz ide until that account and has for three years now. as the administration has been slow to obligate that money. the $1.5 billion rescission in subsidies we propose will not have a significant impact on the program. this is the same precision, madam speaker, that we used in the fiscal 2012 homeland security appropriations bill that passed this house with bipartisan support in june. exactly the same. and yet the senate didn't act and that $1 billion was not available for disaster relief. states with applications in the queue in this program like indiana, louisiana, ohio,

michigan, florida, missouri, california, and many others, will still receive their due dill yens just like before, and could receive awards as well. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. >> madam speaker, the fact that we're even debating the substance of this continuing resolution is a telling statement about the priorities of the current house majority. fema's disaster relief fund, after all is operating on fumes. since late august, the agency has deferred funding for all long-term rebuilding projects in order to have enough resources to meet the most pressing emeency needs. mr. price: this means that critical rebuilding efforts in over 40 states, louisiana,

mississippi, florida, iowa, north dakota, tennessee, missouri, my own state of north carolina, and others are on hold. thousands of people who would currently be earning a good paycheck by working on building efforts are not. and communities that are still recovering from past disasters are being told to move to the back of the line, to make way for those affected by the more recent disasters. madam speaker, congress has a responsibility to make good on our promise to these communities by ensuring that fema has enough resources to respond to all major disasters. regardless of where and when they occurred, we must not pit one state or one region against the other. the administration has made clear what it will take. a $500 million supplemental appropriations for the remainder of this fiscal year and an increase of $4.6 billion above its iitial request for fiscal year 2012.

this c.r. includes $1 billion in supplemental fiscal 2011 funding and a $2.6 a billion down payment toward fiscal 2012. but i'm not satisfied with either the amount or with the price of inclusion. since 2002 congress has appropriated $95 billion in supplemental funding for the disaster relief fund and additional disaster funding for the corps of engineers. those are the two accounts we're talking about here and that has all been designated as an emergency and none of it offset. now, at a time when communities up and down the eastern seaboard are still realing from the aftermath of hurricane irene, at a time when millions of americans are still struggling to find a good job, house republicans are telling us this time around fema won't get any more disaster relief funding for

the current year until or unless we take money from another federal agency. this is a radical departure from the way in which both parties have treated emergency disaster relief over the past decade tanned will undermine our economic recovery. the advanced technology vehicle manufacturing program, which our republican colleagues proposed to cannibalize, that program stands to add tens of thousands of good-paying jobs in an industry that will be critical to our future economic competitiveness. this is a bad precedent and it's bad policy. it's no wonder the american people are fed up with congress. once again the majority is putting partisan ideology ahead of theire needs of the american people by telling our communities they won't get relief until we wage yet another budget battle here in congress. i urge my colleagues to oppose this approach and instead support the disaster relief

measure approved by the senate which would fully fund fema's needs without -- without requiring yet another fight over spending offsets. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my ti. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields bk the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt, who is the chair of the house appropriations committee on homeland security. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama is recognized for three minutes. mr. aderholt: i want to thank the distinguished chairman of the full appropriation committee for yielding and, madam speaker, i rise in strong support of this must-pass resolution. not only does this c.r. provide the necessary funds and authority to keep the government open, it also provides an immediate and a substantial infusion of vital funding to both fema's disaster relief efforts and the corps of engineers' flood control and coastal emergency account and it does all of this in a fiscally responsible way. this resolution before us today

complies with the recently enacted budget control act and provides the appropriations committee of the house and senate ample time to do work on the f.y. 2012 budget. and for the hard-hitting communities aye all across the cotry, include -- all across the country, including my home state of alabama whichas hit hard back in april, in addition to those that were devastated by fires, by floods, tornados, hurricanes over the past five months, this c.r. will sustain fema's disaster relief and recovery efforts and help the corps with additional funding for emergency flood control projects. as i mentioned, my home state of alabama was hit hard back in april, on april 27. so if anyone is interested in sustaining fema's disaster relief, it would be me. and i do believe that this bill does the job. the duration of this c.r. will provide the time to review and scrutinize fema's preliminary dama estimates for hurricane

irene. estimates that are based on historical projections rather than actual data and claims that are still in process of being collected. this oversight will enable the appropriations committee the time to properly and responsibly address the administration's full supplemental request, a request that was submitted to congress only about two weeks ago. and while congress has an undeniable obligation to thoroughly address our nation's disaster relief needs, we can no longer afford to simply throw money at calamities and then ask the hard questions later on. we have to get our funding priorities right t first time and that's exactly what both chairman rogers and i have repeatedly said when it's come to appropriations for homeland security. madam speaker, this c.r. is the right tool for the right time and i urge my clleagues to support this vital resolution and responsibly address our nation's most pressing needs. i thank the gentleman for yielding. yes, i yield.

>> the gentleman chairs the homeland security appropriations subcommittee which funds fema. mr. aderholt: exactly. mr. rogers: you passed a bill back in june that provid $1 billion for fema for disaster relief, is that right? mr. aderholt: we passed that. mr. rogers: what happened to that bill? mr. aderholt: it passed the committee. mr. rogers: i mean, after it passed the house. mr. aderholt: it passed the house and was sent to the senate and that's where it's sitting. mr. rogers: nothing has taken place in the senate since june? mr. aderholt: absolutely is. mr. rogers: and your bill would have provided $1 billion today for disaster relief and the other body hasn't acted? mr. aderholt: we did that, as you say, back well before june. the speaker pro teore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. aderholt: and it's there even today. mr. rogers: no wonder they're operating on fumes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. rogers: i'm talking about fema. the speaker pro tempore: e gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield four minutes

to the distinguished gtleman from indiana, mr. visclosky, the ranking member of the energy and water appropriations subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for four minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman yielding and i rise to oppose the taking of the $1.5 billion from theadvanced technology vehicle manufacturing account to offset a portion of the army corps disaster needs estimated to be $2,256,000,000, instead of declaring this matter an emergency. i do think as a matter of policy this institution and the congress as a whole needs to have the fortitude to understand that we have natural disasters every year and we need to set aside moneys to fund those and not to take money out of investment accounts that create jobs in the united states of america. have two problems that we're discussing today. one is a natural problem.

we have had tornados, we have had floods, we have had hurricanes, we had an earthquake, we've had wildfires. so what is new? the fact is in every year, save two, since 1997, the congress has recognized the need for emergency funds to respond to the impacts of natural disasters on our nation's water resources infrastructure. since 2001 the congress has provided more than $24 billion in emergency fundso the army corps of engineers for this very purpose. and according to the corps of engineers we have spent $5.12 billion on an emergency basis in afghanistan and iraq, on economic infrastructures. now, some suggest all of this has to be offset because we have a fiscal crisis. i would point out that those

emergency declarations for water emergencies in 1998 occurred and the budget of the united states was balanced. there was an emergency declaration as far as those water projects in 1999 and we had a balanced budget. there was not an emergency declaratn in 2000 and we balanced a budget. in 2001 we had an emergency declaration for water disasters and we balanced the budget. that's not an argument not to meethe human crisis that people are facing in this country. i certainly think that my colleague from washington covered the account as far as vehicle manufacturing very well and the investment it represents and the jobs maintained and created that are represented again in this account. and certainly chairman rogers makes a point, rightfully so, that many of these dollars have now been allocated to specific loan programs and others, eight

specifically, will be resolved by the end of this year and again this offset would not impact those and the chairman is absolutely correct. however, i do point out to my colleagues that the -- there remain 10 project notice stage of due diligence, the same words that my colleague from washington used to complete for the remainder of this $1.5 billion, with approximately 10,000 jobs at stake. when i started my remarks -- mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? isn't it true that the industrial states are the ones that are getting most of this money? because that's where the automobile industry has, over the years, been located? mr. visclosky: the gentleman is correct but i would broaden that to suggest the united states of america is getting that money and people who want to make things in the unitedtates of america and manufacture things in the uted states of america are getting that money. mr. dicks: isn't it true, we already know this program works?

this program received $7.5 billion and $3.5 billion of it has been spent, has been obligated and is out there as loans. i think it tripled under the loan guarantee program. and 50,000 -- i yield him another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is yielded another minute. mr. dicks: another two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: another two minutes. mr. dicks: and so these -- we are seeing that this program actually works. i mean, if there were some question about this, if it hadn't worked, it wasn't getting -- but it's creating jobs and there's -- it will create jobs in the future. and there is a whole bunch of peop in there making applications for many of these things that you and i just talked about. mr. visclosky: right. we have 10 pending and i would not be on the floor if i did not believe we maintained and created jobs and we have potentially 10,000 more jobs

that we can create. with the $1.5 billion that is pending. and i would point out again, i would broaden your observation to the entire united states of america. i mentioned two problems we face. the second is manufacturing in the united states of america. in 1977 we had over 18 million americans engaged in manufacturing. last year we had over 11 million . the real hourly wage for what an american worker is paid for one hour's worth of their physical labor, whatever they may do in this country, is 53 cents less in 2010 than it was in 1977. that's not the country i want to leave the children of this world and i'm convinced it's because of the loss of those manufacturing jobs. if it's good enough to declare an emergency and build a children's hospital in basra, iraq, we ought not to take money out of the investment account

th creates jobs in the auto industry to help people in tus can loosea, alabama -- tus can loosea, alabama -- tuscaloosa, alabama. if it is good enough to have people installed in afghanistan, we ought not to take money away from job-creating pgrams to help people in springfield massachusetts. if it's good enough to build a hydroelectric dam in afghanistan on an emergency basis, we ought to declare an emergency to help people in smithfield, mississippi. mr. dicks: i ask for one additional minute. i yield to the geleman. mr. visclosky: i think i have made my point. i think the gentleman has. i think this is the wrong policy and again institutionally we need to come to grips with natural disasters, set those moneys aside but in the alternative and in th intermediate term we need to recognize them for what they are and not to rob the future of this nation economically. and i would be happy to yield back my time. mr. dicks: well, i -- he yields back the remainder of his time.

thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee on foreign operations of appropriations, the gentlelady from texas, ms. granger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. granger: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of this bill, to fund the continuing operations of the federal governme until november8. i appreciate the leadership of chairman rogers and addressing the responsibilities of this congress. passing this stop gap measure will give congress time to complete the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process. in spite of our late start, the appropriations committee was still able to move 11 of the 12 appropriations bills this year. however, the committee still needs time to collaborate with the senate. the continuin resolution funds vil government programs and

services and allows essential bills to be paid. it reduces spending to the levels agreed to by the congress and the administration in the budget control act that s signed into law in august. and it avoids controversial policy riders in order to ensure swift passage. though many reasons members should support -- there are many reasons members should support this bill. perhaps one of the most important is what this bill does for our military. without a c.r. our service members and their families don't get paid. they would have to continue to do their work, protecting the country, but they would have to do it while worrying about whether they'd be able to pay their bills or mortgage. our brave men andomen in uniform already face that possibility -- faced that possibility eaier this year. they deserve better. they need to know that the united states congress stands behind them. this bill addresses disasr relief and funds it in a

responsible way. i urge my colleagues to support this bill so it can be enacted as soon as possible and the appropriions committee can complete its work without any further delay. this is a responsible action for us to take to go forward. the american people expect the congress to do our jobs, the appropriations committee must complete its work. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, mr. rothman, a member of the appropriations committee. the speaker prtempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. rothman: thank you. madam speaker, congress has found the money over the years for disaster relf for all other parts of the country, time and time again. whether it was forest fires in the west, droughts in the southwest, flooding in the

midwest, tornadoes in the south, now, the republican majority in the house of representatives say, says, that when the northeast suffers devastating flooding as a result of hurricane irene and tropical storm lee, you won't get enough to cover all of your damages. and we're going to have to cut other investments in programs that create manufacturing jobs in america. that's simply outrageous. i saw firsthand the vastation that occurs in my district in northeastern new jersey. thousands of my constituents lost their possessions. were forced to evacuate their homes or were without power for days. critical infrastructure was damaged. recovery efforts are beyond the means of the state and local governments. our neighbors, our local communities, our local businesses, need federal help to rebuild and need it now.

in foul. just like every other part of theountry in all the years past. is is not a partisan matter in the northeast. my republican governor, governor chris isaak tee from new jersey said our -- chris christie from new jersey said our people are suffering now and they need federal support now. he was right. it is time to meet the disaster needs of american citizens in new jersey in northeastern united states of america, do so now and in full and the republican majority should get rid of the bill it has now and give full relief to the american people from new jersey. we've been paying the tab for others for a long time. we need the help now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: madam speaker, can you tell us how much time is

left on both sides. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has nine and a half minutes remaining and the gentleman from kentucky has 14 and a half minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to a hardworking member of the committee, mr. cole of oklahoma. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cole: madam speaker, i rise to urge support of h.r. 2608, the continuing resolution act of 2012. i hoped not to be there in this particular capacity. i hoped we would be able to restore complete regular order and move our appropriations bills through in a normal fashion and frankly, thanks to the leadership of chaman rogers and the cooperation of chairman dis, we have made a lot of progress of doing just that and hopefully next year we'll be able to complete that progress and build on what's been accomplished this year.

first, with all due respect, our friends on the other side of the aisle didn't write a budget for this year and that took quite a pit of time earlier this year getting ready for 2011. second we all kn we had a prolonged debate over the debt ceiling, that took a lot of time and with all due respect to our friends on the other side of the rotunda, the senate operates at a low pressurely pace these days when it comes to budgeting and appropriating and has for years. that needs to cnge. some people will oppose the bill because it, quote, doesn't have enough money for disaster relief. the reality is it does. and we can add to that once the continuing resolution is completed and the appropriations process moves forward as necessary with due diligence. frankly, a lot of this talk about not having enough relief is simply a ruse to spend more money in other areas without being responsible in offsetting expenses from existing revenue. some on my side of the aisle

will oppose this legislation because it spends too much. fankly, i have a good deal of sympathy with that. we all would like to lower spending while taking care of legitimate disaster relief. this agreement is one that operates under a total spending level that's been worked out, it's a compromise and one we ought to honor on both sides of the aisle. my friends who oppose it because it spends too much will only make sure it doesn't pass. may i have 30 seconds? mr. rogers: the gentleman is yielded 30 seconds. mr. cole: it's a geat piece of legislation, we can take care of people who need relief and we can exercise our responsibilities in appropriate oversight fashion and continue to work toward deficit reduction in the long-term if we pass this continuing

resolution. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield two and a half minutes to the ranking democratic member of the natural resources committee, congressmand markey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two and a half minutes. mr. markey: i thank the gentleman from washington state. we're having a 1 -- we're having hundred-year floods every year, we're having tornadoes rip through joplin. we have floods in vermont and new jersey and new york. we have hurricanes all across the country. we have 48 states who have had emergency declarations so far this year. the planet is warming. the weather is worsening. what is the resnse of the republicans? they have find the money they say, all of a sudden, for

disaster relief for people who are suffering, for people who are desperate, for people whose lives have been altered permanently. they say we have to cut something. now, do they say we're going to cut the nuclear weapons program because america doesn't need more nuclear weapons? no. are we going to cut the breaks we give to oil and coal? no, we're not going to touch those things. where are we going? what does the republican party do? what does the tea party want? here's what the tea party wants. the tea party wants to cut the clean car factory fund. what is that? that's the fund that we have that's going to invent the automobile and the trucks that go 60, 70, 80, 90 miles per gallon without having to use oil. now why is that important? two reasons. one, it's the oil that's being burned that creates the greenhouse gases that is warming up the planet, causing all these weather conditions

that is leading to these disaster relief progrs that have to have more money in them as each year goes by. and tw it is so that we can tell the opec ministers we don't need your oil anymore -- any more than we need your sand. so what are they doing here today? they're taking the one program that is central to the health and well being of our country and to our national security so we alter our relationship with opec and they are slashing it. they are slashing the one program that reinvents the vehicles that we drive. they're slashing the one program that gives young people in our country some hope at we are going to invent our way out of this problem. and so, it's no -- you don't have to be dick tracey to figure out what's going on here. the oil industry, the coal industry, all the polting

industries are saying, kill the program that makesure that the vehicles we get in 20 years get 75 or 100 miles per gallon without using one gallon of oil. vote no. -- vote no on this terrible bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the distinguished chair of the legislative branch appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from florida, mr. crenshaw. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. crenshaw: thank you, madam speaker. thank you for yielding the time. i want to urge my leagues to vote in favor of this continuing resolution this body has been doing a lot of things to try to get the economy moving again, to try tout people back to work, create jobs and one of the ways we can do tt is to change this culture of spending into a culture of savings. quit crowding out the private sector so that the private sector can come in and do the job creation we know they can do. we have taken some giant steps on stopping all the spending

that's going on here. last year we did some good things, eventually we funded the government at less than last year's level and this year we hope to come in and do the individual appropriations subcommittees in the house, we passed six of those through the full house, unfortunately, the senate only passed one, so we find ourselves now in a situation where we have to pass a continuing resolution. but again, all theubcommittee that came before this full house funded their subcommittees at less than lt year's level, we now have a continuing resolution that has funding that's less than last year, it's been agreed to by the house, agreeto by the senate, agreed to by the president and we can argue about the process, argue about whether it should be a little more or a little bit less, but we'll give ourselves unti november 18 to finalize all the work that needs to be done. so i think it's appropriate that we pass this, move forward and continue to try to get a

handle on the spending to help get our economy going. with that, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i think the gentleman has -- can we get the times? the speaker pro tempore: yes, sir. the gentleman from washington has seven minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky has 11 -- 1 and a half minutes reining. mr. dicks: why don't you have another one speak. mr. rogers: i'll be happy to. madam speaker i yield three minutes to the distinguished chair of the labor-hhs chair of subcommittee, the gentleman from montana, mr. rehberg. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three mines. mr. rehberg: madam speaker, there's no phrase that better embodies the fact that something in washington is broken, and that's government

shutdown. we heard those for the second time in a year yesterday. that tells us old ways to don't work anymore. every month we're faced with new unemployment numbers, new deficit figures. we can never forget that biped those numbers are people. unemployment isn't just a number, it's people who worry about how they'll fill their gas tanks put food on their table. market losses ar't just lines on a graph, it's the retirement savings of seniors across the country who struggle to afford medicine they need and the deficit isn't just borrowed money it's the future being stolen from our children and grandchildren. as subcommittee chairman of labor, health and human services and appropriations, i support th continuing resolution. not only does it prevent a government shutdown, it gives us time to finish working on the remaining appropriations bills in an open and transparent way. i look forward to my subcommittee introducing and debating their work. let me tell you a little bit about it. as we've been crafting this bill, i worked closely with you

membs of this body and listened to folks from montana and throughout the country. we want it to be a balanced plan that fundamentally improves how the government spends its money, the hardworking money of taxpayers. we want to make government more accountable an efficient, saving as much as possible on top of the savings from earlier this year. in addition to eliminating inefficient programs, we'll improve the remaining government by defunding enforcemt of unnecessary and overreaching regulations. these regulations cost jobs and hamper economic recovery. by spending strategically, we can maintain critical funding for things like education and biomedical research. to be successful in tomorrow's economy, our children need to be prepared for the skilled jobs going unfilled today. we also need to invest in basic research so the u.s. can continue to be a lead for the biomedical advancements. our subcommittee wants to do that. our legislation will keep the promise we made to rein in

government spending and government grolte. it's the next step, not the final one, we still have a long way to go. but by finding ways to do more with less, we're changing the direction in washington. that's what e american people want and i'm confident that by passing this continuing resolution, it will give us the time to do it in the open and do it right. with that, i hope you'll vote for this continuing resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. dis: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. engel. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. engel: i thank the gentleman for yielding to me and i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 2608, the continuing appropriations act of 2012. i oppose playing political games with fema disaster funding while american citizens are recovering from recent natural disasters that have wiped out home, businesses and lives. in an unprecedented move, the

republican majority requires an justify set for fema funding. fema must be fully fund sod my constituts who are recovering from hurricane arein. by requiring this offset we're playing politics with the lives of those who need our assistance most. let me tell your republican colleagues, if you want an offset, get rid of the bush tax cuts for the rich. this bill presents a false choice, that we need to cut off one hand to save the other. e bill slashes funds from a program that would reinvigorate the manufacturing sector and decrease reliance on foreign oil to fund fema. we can do both and need not buy into the ridiculous logic. in times of disastery must always take care of our citizens and our country first, period. try telling my constituents who are struggling in the aftermath of a hurricane, sorry, you'll have to wait until we find an offset, sorry, we really don't care about your problems, we have other pressing things to have other pressing things to do.