but i don't think much of that can be put on ferc. i think the law itself, the governing process is worth looking at if this is something that inspires you because we actually i think do a good job under the current system of setting timetables but often the resource agencies don't have any consequence to missing the timetables involved. in the meantime though, i think we have tried as an agency to develop small hydropower systems through the states that are interested. we tried to open up the process to the stakeholders and developers the interested in the small hydropower development and we have come up with a pilot licensing process for the technologies of our ocean power. again, in a way through the regulations to try and encourage industry to move forward. they've been active in some of our rulemakings and perspectives are always very valuable. thank you for the opportunity to testify, and i look forward to answering any questions. >> thank you. jarman leibowitz, welcome. >> chairman degette, dr. burgess, members of the subcommit

particularly consumer protection and everything, ferc, from texas, ferc is very important to what we do in the f.c.c. and of course f.t.c. mr. leibowitz, in your testimony, you discussed the children's online privacy protection rule. regulation or agency promulgated that helps protect privacy of children online. can you please tell us more about this rule and does it ensure that children are protected while using the internet? >> well, it -- it was a bipartisan piece of piece of legislation passed out of this committee. but we also understand that the internet has changed and technology's changed the way children use the internet dramatically in the last few years. and that's why we actually moved up our regulatory review of copa by five years. and so we're working with stakeholders. we put out a sort of notice of inquiry and we will have proposed copa improvements, draft legislation, we always -- draft rule, we put that out, we take comments again. hopefully within the next few weeks by the end of the summer. >> and i know for all the agencies, it's just an example, there's a lot of

you have seen how animals are like that in the ferc, fin and feather shows on the nature channel and burning channel where they are super skittish. easily preyed upon animals. the reason for that is because on the other hand if you had seen a rustle in the grass and it turns out it's a dangerous predator, you are lunch. congratulations joe just been given a darwin award for taking yourself out of the gene pool early without country bidding to the next generation. i'm arguing that there was a natural selection or an evolution of the propensity to make more type 1 errors than type 2 errors, more false positives and false negatives. assuming that all rustles in the grass are dangerous predators just in case because one is a much more costly error than another. why can't we just clock or data and get the decision right? why can we tell the difference between rustles in the grass and dangerous predators? why not sit there in the grass and collect more data? let's see how it goes. because that itself will turn you into lunge for longed for a predator. sitting there and stalling and waiting

there any other countries we could model to the disasters from other countries to do a better job ferc symbol israel on a daily basis and they are a population that has training in the military, and they -- every house has a bunker and in england many disasters and their knowledge one [inaudible] >> there are things in countries all over the world we could emulate and learn from and one of the persistent problems we've had in this country is our unwillingness to to recognize me be someplace else does a little bit better there is something we can learn. i'm not sure that we can really emulate or adopt what another country does. we would never be able to adopt the strategy of how -- she will never get that much. at least i hope we will have a reason to get that mind set in this country. let me put it this way. but you raise a good point and i pointed this out to a group the other day they're talking about the world of federal government because they need to respond better and get more people in the ground and boots on the ground and felt that to a significant amount of time during my ten

the integration of renewables, demand response or the deployment of smart grid technologies, thus fercthe impact that the energy price -- evaluate the impact that increased energy prices resulting from the implementation of the policies will have on jobs? >> the policies we implement hour not direct to the specific technologies but rather directed to the integration of all technologies into competitive marketplace. i believe my colleague would agree we believe the competition is good for consumers and the extent we can maximize the competition we can increase, the types of markets available in the market with a be coal or nuclear or natural gas or solar, geothermal, hydroelectric or any of these resources and also to the extent that we can do things like incorporated in demand response and energy efficiency which are usually the lowest cost resources. the whole mix of those resources in the competitive environment allowed to compete fairly in that competitive environment will in fact produce the lowest cost for consumers. >> so do you do we and analyses these policies will have on jobs

moehler is currently serving his second term on the commission of ferc. he was first nominated by president bush in 2006, sworn into office on july 2006. from 1997 through 2000, he worked in congress serving as an energy policy adviser, where he worked on electricity policy. then, we have a chairman from the federal trade commission, who served as chairman of this commission since february 2009, was appointed to the ftc in fall 2004. before coming to the commission, he had a long career in public sector. the commissioners of a federal trade commission since january 2006 and served as chairman from march 2008 to march 2009. he was general counsel from 2001 to 2004 and worked for the commission from 1979 until 1983. he has been a professor of law at george washington university law school and has also taught law at george mason university school of law. welcome. as you know, the testimony you are about to give subject to title 18, was holding an investigative hearing, this committee has a practice of taking testimony under oath. to any of you have any objec

well, on the premise turkoman david cameron, we ferc met -- i read the other day we met 26 times. i don't know if that is absolutely correct. i can do my best to come back to you on any expect number. i'm sure it is correct that is the primm ministers saying. i have never been to downing street where where he has been prime minister, yet under prime minister gordon brown and 20 blair i did regularly go to downing street. >> well, on a prime minister gordon brown, in the time that he was in downing street, and while he was -- and also while he was chancellor, i would have gone maybe six times a year. >> and tony blair? >> probably similar. media in the last few years and a little more, but i mean if you want the exhort numbers i can do my best to get that. but strangely it was under the labour prime minister's i was a regular visitor to downing street and wasn't the current. >> do you think that there was a change of emphasis when you were on the song or chief executive news international in that always struck me on the news of the world particularly has been a sort of anti-establi

over the past 20 years rather than agree to a rigorous and costly measure associated with a ferc relicensing program, pacific corps omented to you is render its license, to operate the dam, and now rabbits -- wants to remove that dam at its own cost. this amendment will ensure that no federal tax dollars will be used by the corps of engineers to remove or mitigate for the removal of the dam. recently pacific corps representatives communicated to my office that they acknowledged that pacificorps themselves and not the corps is responsible for all impacts that removing this dam might cause to the federal -- or the colombia -- columbia river navigational channel. my amendment ensures that the federal taxpayers do not get left holding the bag for a private company's actions that could cost this private company by their own admission up to $32 million. having said, that do i want to say this, mr. chairman. while i give as it its approval to a dam being removed in the northwest, it's a private decision by a private company, i want to reiterate my opposition to any attempt to remove any of the fede