tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN June 14, 2012 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
>> why don't we get started? i'm told that senator rakowski is on her way. today, we will hear from witnesses on competitiveness and collaboration issues between the u.s. and china. -- i'm told that senator murko wski is on her way. i took a trip to china to discuss the deployment of clean energy. we visited hong kong and beijing to talk to investors and business representatives and government officials. on that trip, obviously, we were impressed by the fast combination of government partnerships.
in china is rapidly developing. although much of their growth is dominated by coal and facile -- and fossil fuels, there are government policies to promote clean energy sector as well. that sector is not only developing domestically in china, it is also extending abroad, it is influencing the u.s. very directly and european markets. the situation in china is in direct contrast to the approach to clean energy that we have taken here in the u.s. many of our efforts to promote clean technology is addressed in and in predict -- in an unpredictable fashion with funds and incentives that
expired and come back to life and expire again. there is a lack of clear direction of policy that would allow industry to plan for the future. i believe the a consistent approach that we have been pursuing has put the u.s. at a disadvantage in competing with china for a share of clean energy markets, both at home and abroad. many in the u.s. argued that we should allow the free market to determine the fate of domestic industries. there is clearly truth in that suggestion but it fails to take into account the industrial policies and practices of competing nations as well as hidden costs in the current energy system. the u.s. cannot compete on a level playing field with countries that have strong industrial policies when our
own policies are inconsistent and erratic. in the absence of clear and coherent policies to support the development of clean technology, many of our companies and industries are left to rely on trade policy to try to protect their competitive interests. trade enforcement is critical, but we also need a strong foundation of domestic policies to build upon. this is not a hearing in tended to focus on the trade cases that are currently before itc and the department of commerce. the matters in this case are not under the jurisdiction of our committee. this hearing should not be a forum to try to prejudice the outcome of any of those cases. the purpose of this hearing is to gain a greater understanding of what china is doing on clean energy, how that impacts to what the u.s. is doing.
i hope that we're able to focus on three large issues, the current landscape of chinese investment, what are the appropriate u.s.-chinese relationships on clean energy issues, and how do we promote u.s. competitiveness with china and other countries in the clean tech sector. i believe that we should level the playing field when there are disparities and the mystic action is needed if -- and domestic action is needed if we are to fully compete in this sector. i am interested in the testimony related to the experience.
wheat want to see what is done here with the clean technology areas. i know that our guests have a significant amount of experience in this. the u.s. and china have common interests in implying clean energy. we might find ourselves in a position of competing with each other for these new markets, i believe that part of our conversation should also lead to answers on what the two countries can be doing together to celebrate the climate of these technologies. let me call on senator murkowski. >> thank you. welcome and good morning. the purpose of the hearing is to take a close look at competitive issues between china and the u.s. i want to reinforce that this is
not about ongoing trade dispute spin to it is not the role of this committee to focus on those processes. focusing on those topics will not -- these are done before the factories are built because they start with the decisions made by companies and individuals. the factors that in these decisions are nearly limitless and they are noted and when the choice is between u.s. and china or any other country. regulatory and tax treatment, property rights, availability, labor, health care costs, access to affordable energy, all of these combine to guide investment decisions. our work can benefit from comparisons with china but there are also some differences that are important that we keep in mind. they are rooted in some very important factors including what our constitution permits, how
much money we can afford to spend, what the american people are willing to support. i believe we need to be mindful of these factors when we hear claims that the u.s. is somehow falling behind china in a clean energy race. in some ways, i would suggest that we're not falling behind from the wages and conditions. i think the u.s. is leading. we should work with china to make progress on our energy challenges that we should not necessarily copy what they do or how they do it just for the sake of copying what they do. imitating china is not the best way to compete with china. this is particularly true for energy technology subsidies as we were to get our debt under control. i have long advocated for the
sustainable approach. i hope that we continue to gain in traction in that direction. beyond spending, we need to be careful about following the energy policy. a source of renewable energy have displaced several million people from their homes. the solar panel factories do not run on solar power. we have a proud history of improving in burma performance. biofuels have played a role in raising our food prices. we currently have no plan for kern and disposal of our nuclear wastes and the transmission lines to connect
renewable assets to the grid has resulted in some controversy. i raise these issues and not to throw cold water on enthusiasm but perhaps to provide some context and a reminder to the specific challenges that we face. it is my hope that this serves as the basis for understanding how conscious we must be about accepting some of these simple narrative. this is not just about lowering the cost of financing projects or finding the money for subsidies, this is about looking at the whole picture and developing as much attention to identify areas where our own government can play a constructive roles. this is about balancing the parody's and reaching agreement on the policies that address both the immediate and long-term needs. the discussion must account for china but i don't think that we should be overwhelmed by it. i appreciate the fact that we have the up its nt to have this
hearing. i look forward to the statements and comments from the witnesses. >> we have five distinguished witnesses here. the head of wind industry research with new energy finance in hong kong. we appreciate you being here. we have mr. alan wolff, the senior counsel -- we appreciate you being here. we have mr. clyde presotwitz, d
an holladay, and mr. derek scissors. we usually give five minutes for our guests to make a statement. we don't we go in order that introduced people, mr. wu, why don't you start. >> good morning, thank you for hosting the year today. it is an honor and privilege to be offering my thoughts on these topics. -- thank you for hosting me here today. our group provides accurate data and insight on investment, technology, promising trends --
policy trends. these represent my views alone and did not represent a bloomberg or bloomberg and energy finance. this should not be construed as investment advice. the subject is china, clean energy, and the trade relationship between the u.s. and china. i grew up in maryland and analyzed the growth of the clean energy industry. i offer my thoughts on its current status in china and what we can expect in the future. the chinese industry has grown rapidly. the country now manufactures half of the solar modules. 8 of the top in solar manufacturers in the world are
chinese. the country overtook the u.s. as the world's largest wind market in 2010 and has traded more than 10,000 wind turbines in 2011. that is 10 times the capacity of the hoover dam. in 2009, 2010, china was the world leader in attracting capital for clean energy. $47 billion went into their wind, solar, and other green energy sectors in 2011. they finished second last year to come up with reasons i will explain in a moment. -- they finished second last year for reasons i will explain in a moment. they're growing at about 8% a year. the utilities and power generators must invest heavily to build new capacity.
the need to diversify to cleaner and less vulnerable fuel price shock is attractive and important. in 2005, the chinese government drafted its first renewable energy law which set target for renewable energy and mandated that the utilities to procure a certain amount of electricity from these sources. this was set high prices for power from wind or biomass projects. laws required them to prioritize to renewable. the chinese state owned utility, local governments have followed. the domestically in manufacturing industry goes alongside the capacity.
the chinese state-owned companies began buying licenses and hiring foreign engineers to design the guidelines. they began building solar manufacturing facilities. the ultimate result, the creation of the energy companies. a number of european companies have benefited from this boom. the advanced components were designed and supplied by european firms and committees to manufactures solar cells and modules come from american companies. the clean energy boom is not without its problems. the rapid growth has traded a clean energy bubble and there are far too many wind and solar manufacturing companies and many face incredible pressure and possible bankruptcy. they sit in idle and in remote
regions. today, the clean energy industry is still growing but this growth has moderated significantly. the government is trying to invest in this sector and reduce the number of new wind farms be built in this country to a more sustainable level. the for this is on quality and not quantity. the u.s. is allowed to regain their investment on clean energy dollars in 2011. as the policy appears to a depressing investment, particularly in that the wind sector. i would like to address the question of what is next. as the industry calls at home, many are seeking opportunities abroad. china has a surplus of savings and a strong need for further investment including more investment overseas.
the government has encouraged the clean energy industry to do this. the chinese wind turbine manufacturers utility and other investors have been largely confined to the domestic market. we anticipate the chinese power companies, now in europe, a emerging markets, particularly in latin america. at the same time, american and european energy companies will continue to sell their products and technology to china and a partner with chinese companies as they go overseas. the trade flow only increase in the future and it will be a two- way street. overseas centers have been slow and cautious. thank you for your time and attention, i welcome your questions.
>> thank you very much. mr. wolf, go right ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman, members of the committee. this hearing is timely and important. this does have consequences in the market. this has traded tremendous excess capacity, particularly in photovoltaic. until recently, 95% of its production was in photovoltaic and the estimate is around 75%. many u.s. producers are in serious economic trouble as a result of china of's industrial policies. china has shut its market to our wind turbine exports as well as those of europe and india. the u.s. measures are in support
of the industry and they are temporary, erratic, expiring. a confrontation over trade is likely and within a few months with the u.s. anti-dumping case on solar and the potential claim against state programs as well as bringing their own anti- dumping case. drawing on several experiences, one is doing it for the national chair committee on comparative innovation policies enshrine of the time i spent advising u.s. semiconductor industry's since 1980. the study that they did for the foreign trade council and the jittery and equipment which i asked be entered into the record. proud to into that into
the record. i think you very much. >> the questions i see before us, can i reach a national consensus that is vitally important that clean energy account for a much greater supply of our total usage is complete u.s. industrial production and the entire supply chain delivering clean energy efficiently from the production of photovoltaics through deployment on wind farms. those of the decision that they have to make. they are rolling this out on a fiscal constraint. i would say there are two other questions that we have to face, it is it acceptable for them to shape the u.s. economy. i would suggest that that is not acceptable.
for us not to seek or to find which energy technologies lie beyond the horizon. i think we have to. what should we do? we need a broad set of measures beyond the scope of this theory but also in terms of taxation and job training, manufacturing. things that would boost our economy and job creation broadly, which are subjects for the national academy. for renewables, for the costs to come down, there will have to be mandates and subsidies. i think that we can learn some useful lessons from the semiconductor experience. in the 1980's japan had a market and they were dumping their semiconductors >>
generation after generation of product. vertically integrated japanese producers were quite able to sustain that policy of selling below average cost of production. silicon valley start-ups into the national really on the verge of extinction. the u.s. companies needed unencumbered access to foreign markets. they needed to improve their manufacturing skills. they needed to continue to attract capital. they needed to make sure that universities were training engineers with relevant skills. they needed tax policies in support of the need for research and development spending. they needed a complete strategy, not just a partial strategy.
the result is that the u.s. semiconductors, half of the world market shares in the mid 1980's are now double the share. this is in terms of supply and to the global needs. the semiconductors a top for one of the five exports in the u.s.. there are major facilities that have gone in up in new york state now with global foundries. we are now very good friends with the japanese producers. we're working together on things like energy-saving and reduction of the use of harmful chemicals. what do we need now? we need to have market stability, predictability from both the chinese and u.s. producers. we need from the chinese perspective, they probably need
to avoid large deposits at the u.s. treasury if they are found to be dumping. there is room for cooperation in research and development, potential chinese investment in the u.s. market. ultimately, trade measures and domestic policies should be integrated into a strategic approach as we do semiconductors. down the road, we could get the europeans involved as well. i believe there is a negotiated solution out there. there are mutual interest that we should explore with china and reached an accommodation that does not end up in just a trade dispute. >> thank you for coming. we appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
you have best with the current landscaped is of the chinese investment. this has been deleted by the two speakers. i would like to describe them in a following way. china is committed to developing clean and renewable technology in the same way that the u.s. is committed to achieving air superiority, as part of their pivot to asia. this is a high national priority. developing this technology and leadership industry in china is a matter of the highest national
security. i say this because that has to inform our own response through china. i wanted to size not just china. i remember in february of 2009, i was invited to a white house meeting to discuss the future of kreme technology in the obama administration. there was a debate between those in the administration who want them to become proactive and those various incentives.
we should rely on market incentives solely in a discussion. my point was, are you kidding me? i look around the world and i see that germany has a huge program subsidizing solar technology, denmark has a big program subsidizing wind technology, japan is doing batteries and solar, and wind. korea is doing batteries, china is doing batteries, wind power. i said, that is the market. when you say, leave it to the market, you were saying, leave it to the tender mercies of germany, japanese, danish, norwegian, chinese industrial policies. when we ask ourselves what is an appropriate reaction or response now, that same situation
remains. we're not living in a world of open market free-trade. this is not adam smith. we are living in an environment in which industrial policy is defining the outlines of the market and the incentives. so, that being the case, it seems to me that the first major question that we have to answer is how important do we think it is for the u.s. to have a capability in these technologies? when i say capability, i mean, a technological capability. that is an understanding of the technology and the ability to do research in the technology, somehow to remain at the leading edge of the research. but also, because it is often
difficult to remain at that leading edge without some competitive, productive capability, then the question also arises, to what extent is it necessary for us to have a mmercially-productive, competitive, productive capability. that question has to be asked not for the short term but for the long term because the nature of these kinds of industries is that they are characterized by economies of scale, by doing by learning, by fact dependence. you do not get to their unless you have gone through the preliminary steps. you don't make a huge leaps ahead without having the preliminary steps. if you think that these technologies are really going to
be important down the road, even if, for example, the low price of shale gas undercuts them today, but maybeif they're goine important down the road, then it is necessary to adequately identify the incentives and disincentives in the market that are being created by the industrial policies of our various competitors and trading partners, and by our own. and adjust them in such ways as to be sure that there is a come tinning -- a continuing competitive u.s. capability. as my colleague pointed out, this is not a new question. this is not a new phenomenon. we have been here before. we saw this in the 1970's and 1980's with japan, more recently
in the 1990's with japan, taiwan, singapore. all of them have adopted similar kinds of pro-active industrial development policies to achieve dominance in industries that used to be dominated by the u.s., and in industries that are capital intensive, labor-intensive, not -- i mean, not labor-intensive, capital-intensive, technology intensive, not labor-intensive. those are the industries in which we keep killing ourselves. what we keep seeing is loss of competitiveness in those industries in the face of the policies of some of these i have mentioned. however, as alan rightly points
out, there was a recognition in the u.s. of the need to respond. and we did respond. it was not a perfect response, but as alan pointed out, the united states retains a very powerful leading-edge capability. how did we respond? with a broad, comprehensive policy. we self initiated -- that is, the white house did not wait for industry. the white house filed a complaint against japanese dumping of semiconductors. we created a government consortium to promote cooperation and collaboration among the advice makers, equipment makers, in order to
foster the advance of that nexus and the advance of leadership in industry. we had an agreement that resulted in revaluation of the vastly undervalued japanese yen. a whole range, a panoply of measures comprehensively linked together to deal with the question of how we stay competitive in this industry. we had an agreement with japan under which the japanese agreed to halt their dumping, but number two, also committed to seeing to it that foreign producers got a fair share of the japanese market for, defined as about 20%, which we did get. that, i think, is indicative of the kind of policy approach, kind of attitude and a response that is called for in this
situation with china, and not just china, but in the world of clean energy, particularly in asia. >> thank you very much. mr. holliday, you're the person who are is the who is the expert. correct previous witnesses and give us your view. >> thank you, and thank you for inviting me here today to speak on these topics. we appreciate your leadership on the matter of industrial competitiveness that is so important to our continued growth and prosperity. we face challenges today ,omparable to the late 1980's at a time when both industry and government budgets were tight.
the u.s. has always lead in research and development, and there has been broad consensus that science and technology integral to economic growth. in recent decades, however, the relationship between r&d in manufacturing has been less well understood. while we still lead the world and discovery, we do face a danger of being a producer of intellectual property that is ultimately commercialized elsewhere. such an outcome denies the american economy the economic benefit the comes with manufacturing in the form of revenue and jobs. as we face stiff global competition and severe budget pressures, this story is particularly instructive. in 1987, congress authorized a bold public-private partnership and subsequently appropriated $100 million per year, matched dollar by dollar by industry, to form a consortium of leading chip makers to restore u.s. leadership in semiconductors.
by the mid-1990s, we had accomplished his mission and withdrawn from federal funding. the experiment had succeeded. sematech had indeed played a key role in reestablishing the u.s. in the global market. even now, the experience as an industrial consortium is one of collaboration and research and development. this cooperative funding develops projects that fill key gaps in r&d and manufacturing. this experience of groundbreaking industry consortiums support by public- private funding is directly opposed to many critical industries today including energy storage, as margaret, cybersecurity systems, medical -- smart grid, cybersecurity
systems, medical devices and others. it is based on sharing cost and risk and collective intelligence. knowledge is power but knowledge shared is power multiplied. it is industry-led, a member driven. it allows for both collaborative programs and proprietary work with to protection. its broad representation of the industry's supply chain creates critical mass, drives road maps, and provides a collective voice. it is built on public-private partnerships that leverage both government and industry funding. in national government funding? as a catalyst while industrial funding increases -- initial government funding acts as a catalyst while industrial funding increases over time.
they provide facilities for testing and prototyping at scale, which is critical, accelerating the creation of a dance production lines in the u.s. and commercialization of new material -- advance production lines and u.s. and commercialization of new materials and products. with collaboration in areas such as environmental safety, health standards and reliability, we can collaborate internationally and still protect u.s. manufacturing based i.t. symantec has involved of the 25 years to help keep pace and leave the industry. we have expanded our scope engagement with the supply chain, a diversified our funding sources, the ballot next generation equipment -- developed next generation equipment and now transition to
wafers. at the same time, we have manufacturing challenges. last year, a sematech was selected by the department of energy to head a consortium to establish and accelerate the development and commercialization and next generation solar panel systems. we will provide collaborative consortium's research and development as well as manufacturing facilities to best demonstrate new technologies and manufacture processes of production scale, which once again is very critical. in conclusion, in our view, the sematech model must be part of the u.s. playbook to leverage unique u.s. advantages and innovations and strengthen the bridge between our indian manufacturing. in addition, to leverage our country -- for -- between our
industry and manufacturing. in addition, we must leverage our country's colleges and universities. >> thank you very much. i do not think we have heard enough today about how china is actually doing. i need to say a few things about that. i would suggest that my written testimony documents a little bit on china's actual performance. china's actual performance is poor. that is not really arguable. the reasons why, how long it will be poor we can argue about. those will imply some lessons for the u.s. let me start with some positives about what china has done so far. they create jobs at home. they also spend a lot, which makes it seem possible that there will be improvement in their future outcomes, which i think is fair. the possibility does exist. but that is it for the
positives, and the negatives are pretty starke. number one, china is now significantly more dependent on imported energy than it was. it is now the world's largest coal importer and it will pull away from everyone else in rather dramatic fashion. its oil import share is rising. china is moving farther away from the stated goal of self- sufficiency than most countries have. according to the national energy agency, in the decade of the 2000's, u.s. energy improved annually at a 2.5% clip. china, which had far greater room for improvement, improved much more slowly, a 1.7% increase annually in energy efficiency. they are not doing well and efficiency either. ecology. we started talking about clean energy primarily to reduce carbon emissions. in 2005, china was second to the united states in global carbon
emissions. they have spent a great deal of money sense. they now are at least 50% ahead of the u.s.. that is a result of their spending. some people think if you spend more money, you get more innovation. i do not agree. there's very little innovation in china at this point. there are a lot of plans for innovation. maybe there will be innovation in the future. we have not seen it yet. the ability to create green jobs is heavily dependent on foreigners for domestic overcapacity in wind. when we actually break down chinese energy performance, it is bad. why? now we are moving into the suggestion phase. china extended a lot of support large solar companies, for example. three of the top five tiny solar companies have that now that is six times the market -- chinese solar companies have debt that
is six times their market cap. they're either going to go out of business or be subsidized by the state. they try to innovate by decree. i would argue that you do not protect intellectual -- if you do not protect intellectual property you are not going to innovate new matter how many orders to give from beijing. in 2003, there was a change in chinese government. there coal use was declining. it's sort but the government change. -- it soared with the government change. when he suppressed competition, you get less efficiency. china in opposes price controls. -- impose price controls. there those self sufficiency. the theme in all of this is the
role of the state. what are the implications for the u.s.? cooperation for a while. primary and energy is state control of energy, not technological breakthroughs, not saving emissions. they have done the opposite. they spend a little more than us and they get much worse results. us imitating china would hurt the entire planet economically, and terminally, on any dimension you can think of. in the -- environmentally, on any dimension you can think of. our energy efficiency is higher and we are gaining more. we are cutting our emissions. there is no sign of us leading our tech -- losing our tech leadership. even in jobs, they spend a lot more money to create each screen energy job and they may not be able to sustain their -- corrine energy job, and they may not be
able to sustain their job -- green energy job, and imena the may not be able to sustain their job performance. i am not arguing about the terms of that. corporate tax reform i think both sides realize would be helpful. some sort of agreement would be helpful. i agree with the chairman's opening, and entirely that a stable regulatory and barman is important and the jumping back and forth is not helpful -- regulatory environment is important and that jumping back and forth is not helpful. when you set out specific targets, you pinnace to technology pass the do not turn out to be the -- pin us to technology paths that do not turn out to be the right ones. i want stability, but i do not want the government pushing
industry in a certain direction. those would be my recommendations for the u.s., let's not forget that we are outperforming china by a wide margin. thank you. >> let me start with a few questions. this analogy to what was done with sematech i think is an intriguing one. my recollection of that experience was that the industry itself, the semiconductor firms themselves, came to washington and basically said we need to do this. we want to do this. we need government assistance to help us get started. and we did that. at the same time, my recollection is that the original members for u.s.
companies -- were u.s. companies. i think nac applied for membership and was not permitted to be a member at that time, is my recollection. i guess what i'm now sort of struggling with is if there were to be a consortium of companies to pursue their competitive position in some of these technologies, how do we go about identifying that organization? is there a critical mass of industry that is u.s.-based or that has operations in the united states that would want to do such a thing? i guess those are some obvious questions. >> just to begin, i'm sure mr.
holliday has some current thoughts on this subject. sematech was industry driven. you're quite right. ibm, at&t, vertically integrated companies and the silicon valley companies, texas instruments as well, found that they were not as efficient or producing as good a product as the japanese. it is one thing to say we do not have the quality that the others do and we need to drive our manufacturing efficiency, our toolmaking, our process these, and the way to do that is in a hands-on, laboratory environment, a factory that actually produce something, not for commercial use, but to actually make better chips.
you are right that this was a u.s. effort entirely. it was funded by the department of defense at $100 billion per year for five years. the industry also matched that contribution. it was a real effort and it paid off. the industry has become global. foreign participants in sematech today. they're still pushing the envelope. the benefits for the world have been dramatic in terms of the information revolution. whether there is enough of a consensus in the u.s. private sector today i would leave to the person who is currently involved in the sematech initiative. >> mr. holliday, what is your take on whether there is a critical mass of industry
interested in anything comparable to sematech any kind of collaboration to improve their business? >> especially in the supply chain, the supply chain is really desperate. the manufacturing is critical. having a facility where they can go do production work and test production materials. it is critical for the supply chain to be able to develop more advanced materials and tools. >> that is what you said you have been tasked to do or are working with the department of energy to do? >> yes, sir. we have a very great opportunity -- it is the first time sematech has been replicated in 25 years and the department of energy has
created that around the technology. some components of crystalline silicon, and we're working to expand the. >> -- crystal and silicon, and we are working to expand that. >> maintaining in the u.s. manufacturing capacity -- that point has been made, and the ability of the u.s. to remain a leader in research and development is not going to be possible if we do not have that manufacturing capacity in these technologies. i just wonder if anybody wanted to elaborate on that. >> i think it is an important point. i think there is a false sense, widely spread, the innovation proceeds in a straight line. you do basic r&d in a laboratory some place and that causes you -- proceeds to developmental r&d
and that proceeds to commercialization. that is not really how it works. it is very often the somebody in a field comes up with an idea and they throw it in the lab and back and forth. when you do not have the back and forth capability, it is much more difficult to do the innovation. i mean, i think we have seen that in so many instances, this comment of past dependence, that what happens next depends on what happened in the step before, if you do not have the step before, the next that does not happen, is privileged knowledge both economically and scientifically. -- pretty well acknowledged both economically and scientifically.
>> i agree with that. a great deal of innovation happens on the shop floor. or they are able to pull from the research side. you do not have the manufacturing side, you lack the innovation. as you lose the manufacturing, you lose that. bookere is a wonderful called "bell labs, the idea factory," it came out this year. it was engineers and scientists who were creating fabulous inventions driven by industry, driven by the need to have practical manufacturing outcomes, including, ultimately, the transistor, which gave birth to the integrated circuit.
we do not have a bell labs today sematechn wahat dle and can do. those are our current idea factories. >> i suggested in my opening that the united states was doing relatively well. some of the others are suggesting that china is ahead. i guess the question to you would be whether or not it is constructive to even talk about this being a race for the clean energy title. is it fair and constructive to say we are in a race?
if it is, if it is appropriate to refer to this as some kind of a competition, what is the metric that we use? how do we judge who is winning and who is losing? is it a question of how much money has been deployed? is it the generating capacity that has been put in place. it is a calculation of reduction of emissions? how do we even measure this to know who is up or down? i throw this out to all of you. i think it is an important part of this discussion. is it all about how much money is spent or is it the outcome at the end? >> if it is a race to deploy clean technologies, then it is a very useful thing to do to both
be successful and -- china needs to do more for reasons of environment and to change their energy sourcing. are there places to collaborate? i think so with respect to carbon, clean coal technology, perhaps something in wind. i am struck by the fact that in consumer electronics, japanese industrial policies took us out and we have come back. we have come back with iphones and ipads, a least on the invention side, and a lot of the benefit is to our economy. know what is going to come back. here it is not product like consumer electronics, but whether we can have within our
economy the ability to degenerate -- generate not only r&d and invention but commercialization. >> let me ask and maybe this will give better definition to the editors. is it about just deploying, making sure you have the wind turbines up, but if the winter and is not connected to anything, if it is -- wind turban is not connected to anything, is that a way of saying china is more successful? again, what are these metrics? >> i think that is a very good point. there are many ways of measuring a metric. it is parity that matters. grid parity. being able to deploy energy at a cost effective way that is competitive with fossil fuels and other sources of energy. i think it is not about how
many turbine's you put up every year if they do not work. it is about whether you can do that in a cost-effective way and produce energy from it that is also cost-effective for consumers or the economy. >> to some extent, i sense a little bit of cross talk. if we are talking in terms of reducing emissions, i think the u.s. is doing better than china in reducing emissions. we have had a great boon from shale gas, and in god. -- thank god, so that is going to be a big piece of the reduction in emissions. we have also had a rise in
conservation issues. again, very positive. different little dep than the question we are talking about. you may want to reduce emissions by not as shell gas, you may want to have the potential to reduce by use of solar, wind or battery driven technologies. if you think those technologies also have potential new lock on capabilities for the future and you want that for the future, then you need to question how you are doing it now. and in your metrics, how you are doing it, as well as how much is being invested, what is the state of your technology versus the other technology, what is
the rate of deployment, the rate of innovation. these are all pretty measurable things. these are all pretty miserable things. the measurements that we have so far seem to indicate that the chinese and others -- again, i do not want to just put this on the chinese, but the taiwanese, germans, many others have advanced fairly rapidly, in many instances more rapidly than we. you have asked if we are in competition. i have to say yes. they are characterized by economies of scale and imperfect competition. they are not win-win. they tend to be 0-sum. -- zero-sum. automotive industries or aircraft industries. in those industries, this seems
to be the trend that the u.s. has found itself in. >> my time has expired, but i have got two more that i would like to hear from , so the thank you. mr. holliday or dr.? >> i guess the best thing i can do is talk about what the nobel laureate dr. smalley found before he passed away. this is over the next 50 years, so there is a lot of reasons that we need to address clean energy, find solutions to energy, national security, diversify your miksis. -- diverse fuels. it may not be deployed in the terror what level, but it will
be in coming years. it is critical that the u.s. be a leader in the next generation technologies and that we position ourselves. >> i know which metric we should not use, which is how much money we spend. i know that most people would say that spending money is bad unless you get something for it, and the chinese are not, so we want to spend as little as possible and get as much as possible. the idea that someone is spending more money does not make any sense to me. why did we start with clean energy? we started because we were concerned about carbon emissions. that is not something to dismiss and say it does not matter now. it does well. the united states is doing well, and china is doing terribly. it is not the only metric, but it is one. we are doing better. so different people, different members of the committee are going to have different metrics.
money should not be the metric. we want to see what we are getting for what we are putting into this, and gas is a good example. the chinese are extremely jealous of the gas extraction in the u.s.. they do not have that. seville has won the battle? we have. can we lose the next one? it is possible. we are not doing perfectly, but the amount of money we are spending is not the way to measure the outcome. >> senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. very good witnesses. and let me start by saying i think the principal question for our panel and our challenge in the days ahead is how our country is going to respond to what has been described by some experts as china's green mercantilism. mr. chairman, there was something out this morning, and
i would ask for unanimous support to put it in. they in the paper define this green mercantilism as a policy that gives other countries an unfair advantage in terms of our interests, allowing them to boost exports, and limit imports, and deal with technology, and for me, you really summed it up when you said in your testimony, you asked, essentially, is it acceptable for a chinese industrial policy to shape the u.s. economy, and i think that that sort of incorporates the essence of this issue with respect to green mercantilism, and it also goes beyond the trade issue, which i think is important for us. i also chaired the finance subcommittee on international trade. i am interested in expanding trade. i do not think free trade means
trade free from rural -- rule. this gives us a chance to shape the challenge both in terms of trade and other issues, so why do we not start with the other four witnesses responding to his question? his question was, is it acceptable for the china industrial policy to shape the u.s. economy? give me your response to his question, and if you think it is unacceptable for china to be shaping our policy, what do you think we ought to do in a pro- active way to combat it? let's start with you. >> no, i do not think it is successful. i think the point that the senator brought up earlier is whether or not we should emulate china. i think the answer to that is also know.
the fact of the matter is the economies of the united states and china are different, and the reality is that china has a vast amount of energy demand that is still growing, and they have a very high reliance on coal at the moment, and that is a very different situation to what we have here in the united states, and i think what dr. scissors mentioned earlier, about gas, i think yes, china is looking with and be somewhat to the united states in terms of our ability to exploit shale gas, which china does have vast resources of but currently lacks the technology to exploit it as we have done at this level in the united states. so i think the answer is no. i think we have to take very different -- a very different look at the way the economies of the united states and china are, and finally, i would just like to add, with regard to metrics,
yes, i think china has done very well, which is manufacturing. china makes a lot of things, not just clean energy. goods. so it has advantage. solar pv and the wind turbines, on a large scale on a cost- effective manner. we can argue whether it is good or bad for real or foam, but perhaps one benefit of that is in has been able to reduce the cost of renewable energy significantly, at least for china for its domestic consumption. >> i know that you do not think it is acceptable for china's industrial policy to shape the u.s. economy. what do you think our country should do in a pro-active way to combat it? >> we have to use our heads. i do not think that is acceptable for china to shape our economy, but at the same
time, i do not think that we need to willy-nilly imitate everything that china does. not everything china does is necessarily right, so i think what is required is for us to spend some time thinking hard about what is really important to us, and then take the measures that are necessary to counter the negative impact on us achieving our goals of some of these mercantilist policies. for example, we know that an element, an aspect of the mercantile list party is -- the mercantilist party is in the country. typically, we wait for a company or entity to file an antidumping
complaint before we do anything about dumping. we do not have to do that. so one thing that i have advocated is let's monitor industries where others have proactive industrial policies, look at the extent of their over investment and their anti- dumping activity and helped initiate cases. take them to the wto right away. that is one element. typically, such countries have currency manipulation policies. it is not just china. singapore, taiwan, korea. they intervene in currency markets every day to keep their currencies undervalued. take measures to counter that, with controls if need be. timothy geithner can do it. he does not even have to ask congress to do it. set up a consortium, whenever it is. i think that's a big factor in
the united states is investment taxes. i think that very often the incentives for investment in the united states are not nearly as attractive as they are for investment abroad. singapore is the world champion at attracting foreign investment. we could do it and learn well to copy a lot of what singapore does. it is a matter of what is important to us. all right then, what is our strategy? and a combination of carrots and sticks to get what is important to us, and just to emphasize what alan said, i know we have been involved in these discussions for a long time. typically, the webers administration, the argument is we do not pick winners and losers. we should not be intervening to subsidize or provide corporate benefits, and what is lost in
that discussion is that in a situation in which you are facing an active industrial policy abroad, a decision not to intervene is a decision. a decision not to pick winners and losers, it means you are going to be a loser. you are not going to be in that industry. i think that often does not get understood. >> my time is up. again, if you can just respond to questions? >> no, sir, i do not think it should dictate our international policy, but we need to be focused and have vision and understand where our country is going and the where the global technologies are going so we can be strong and successful, and not picking winners and losers, the consortium model is good for that.
a at >> the word green is unnecessary. they are a mercantilist, and big. we need to push them to try to get their industrial policy to back off in certain areas. and where that is not going to work, sometimes their subsidies help us. they make things cheaper for american consumers. sometimes they hurt in ways we cannot respond to, so i think my colleagues on the panel all saw -- said a variation of the same thing. we need to identify where they affect us, no avoiding it, but where we can respond properly,
that is a subset, so we need to focus down and say here is the big group of banks. where can we do something that really matters? >> thanks. >> let me ask another question. one of the frustrations i have had is we do not seem to have a willingness to do on the procurement side what other countries do on a regular basis. for example, china is not a signatory to the government procurement agreement under wto, so they are not obligated to give a fair opportunity to foreign producers of products that they might buy through their governmental organizations. should we be doing more with our buy-america policies to
support industry? i will give you a specific. made in china. they were cheaper, and they were purchased by the contractors that was hired that were putting in the panels. should we be doing more to urge that u.s. government and u.s. government to an entity is a and, to pursue an american policy to buy when it comes to industry?
mr. wolff? >> there were transistors and semiconductors. government demand was the startup of this industry. a government demand started titanium. government demand in the manned space flight program really give us our start on nanotechnology. government demand gave us an internet. government demand gave us new material in gps, so intelligent use of government demand is, i think, a very important component to policy. it has to be balanced against cost. we are not interested, i do not think, in having an inefficient procurement system, but it cannot be the only cost. it has to be maintaining the
domestic base as well. the military is a major consumer and has a major interest in, for example, renewables, with targets to increase the renewable energy that is source for both national security and cost reasons. i think that program is a very important one that has to be considered with respect to support of u.s. industrial base. >> all right. mr. prestowitz? >> i recently drove over the oakland bay bridge in california, which is still being built. the main span is being built in china, and the reason for that is initially, the chinese had a very low bid on the steel and fabrication. well, it turns out that they are
way behind schedule and way over cost, and california is not only not saving any money, it is not generating the jobs it would have had actually procured the bridge in the u.s. >> senator murkowski? >> this goes to the chairman's question. oftentimes, if we have a buy- america program, that may add to the cost. there is another area where we may be adding to cost is when we put in place federal requirements or mandates for production of renewable fuels, whether it is through federal or state renewable energy standards, clean-energy
standards that the president has proposed a new federal mandate for. the chairman has been working on some legislation. i think we recognize in an effort to comply with these requirements, sometimes the equipment that utilities turned to will be american made. other times, it will not be american made. we have got tension between the goal of environmental improvements on the one hand and then job creation here in this country on the other hand. is this a situation where ultimately, we are going to be able to figure this out and are able to have our cake and eat it, too, or will we invariably be dealing with a situation where we have to prioritize one over the other? it will either be more affordable energy, but maybe compromise on whether it is built here in america with jobs in america or a trade-off with
environmental aspects? do you see us getting to a point where it really is u.s. jobs? it really is a win when it comes to emissions and truly being able to have it all? do we get to that point? or are we constantly in this point of tension and prioritization of one over the other? >> yes. i think, unfortunately, we are constantly hear. unless the u.s., without subsidies, which, of course, cost money and raise the effective cost of the clean energy, is the superior provider over whatever technologies we are using at the time, which is very, very unlikely, then somebody else is on to be making something more affordably than we are, however they are doing it, so that we have this choice. do we want the very heavily
subsidized chinese solar power which will make it more competitive and provide us with affordable, clean energy? or do we want to say no, they subsidize these things, and the cost american jobs, and we do not want that. it is not an easy choice. i do not want to suggest that. if we spend government money, that counts as a cost of energy. some technology is sort to be useful for the environment and providing clean energy, and when we use that technology, we do not make it here. there is no way to escape it. it is a tough choice, and we are stuck with it. >> i will go down here. mr. wu. >> i disagree with that. energy is a very localized resources. energy security, a wind turbines
or a nuclear power plants, it is located in one location. if it is providing energy to the united states, it has to be located in the united states. therefore, it can generate jobs for maintenance and the ongoing operation of the plant for many, many years, and we know a lot of the economic benefits to solar and wind is generated with where it is located, which is the maintenance of the wind farm, installation of solar panels, etc., so it is not to say that none of this will be manufactured, all of it will be manufactured in the u.s. it will be a mix. all coming from one location or it all has to be based elsewhere. >> i think the purpose, one of the purposes of government backing joint research and development and a strategy, including trade policy and other
policies is to drive down the cost of what we're trying to affect. in semiconductors, we did get an agreement with japan not to sell below the average cost of production, by company. the net result was that korea and taiwan came on stream with memory chips, and the united states remains in that kind of technology, and micron technologies, with no continuing trade route. that was gone 15 to 20 years ago, but micra technologies was out of boise, idaho, and they bought to facilities in japan and made it there as well, because the japanese market was totally open. i think the net result is not only to have the technologies that continue to be developed here but to drive costs down the curve, and we have been very successful with that in a number
of areas, and my suspicion is with the photovoltaics, it will achieve that as well. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate that. we appreciate the comments from the witnesses. >> thank you. let me just ask another question auric two. senator franken sent word that he is anxious to ask a couple of questions, and he is on his way back from the capital, so let me ask a couple of questions while he is on the way. i guess one obvious question is if a semiconductor or a sematech-type of entity is created for these sectors, how does that translate into us actually manufacturing those products here? i mean, why -- frankly, my
impression is that we do not have enough u.s. firms to make a sematech-type of entity on photovoltaics. we would have to have a more global organization, and if we did, why would that manufacturing not be performed elsewhere? mr. holliday? >> yes, sir. when you create this type of hub, this manufacturing and development facility, it creates a catalyst. it brings in suppliers, and it brings opportunities and gives business advantages that do not exist anywhere else in the world potentially, like one you replicated their energy peace, but what it does is it brings the industry in, and there is a lot of industry that is anxious.
it will be a huge market. and it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs. supply industry comes. they are able to develop next- generation technologies, and it creates creating infrastructure are rounded. this infrastructure does not exist at the universities and most national laboratories. >> mr. franken, i advised folks that i was filibustering until you arrived. >> go ahead. >> no, i have asked what questions i had. we are interested to hear what questions you have. >> mr. wolff, mr. prestowitz, i would like to give me the opportunity to address some of s testimony,sors'
such as the reliance on oil and coal and the lack of energy efficiency improvement, vis a vis or compared to the united states, that they are a function of its growing economy, and i think that without that context, that testimony was kind of -- it just needed that context, because otherwise, it was kind of meaningless, and i just want you to put it in context for me. you know, while this was expanding its economy, i think some years double digits, and in 2007 to 2008, i think the last quarter of the bush
presidency, we catered to a negative 9% gdp -- we trader -- to lay - 9% gdp. so can you comment on that? >> yes. i think the chinese, it seems to me, are actually to be admired in a way in this. obviously, they are trying to maintain the high growth, it%, 9%, 10% growth rate, and that for them has been very energy intensive, and it has been energy intensive with the worst kind of energy. they have got the worst kind of coal, and the kind of have the worst kind of oil, and if you
travel in china, you are traveling in a haze, and everybody has a cough, and the chinese are aware that that is not good, so it is precisely because of that that they put such emphasis on trying to develop alternative sources, and they have been looking at all possibilities, and so i think that the fact that the chinese emissions are worse than ours and trending worse than ours does not take away from the significance, importance in their commitment to alternative energy is, and so then the question becomes, well, in the alternative energy field, are they performing, are they doing dumb things, are the inventing the wrong technology is, are they doing smarter things?
they are probably overinvesting because the incentives to invest have been made very attractive. essentially, the party has told regional banks to lend. this is like the old days in japan, where they told the banks when, and so they loans. but that then gets to this question of, ok, maybe they are overinvesting, and maybe we would not do it that way, but that is an impact on cost, so you then get to the question of, are these technologies, put aside the: and so forth, but are the technologies that the chinese are pursuing, and, again, i want to emphasize that it is not just china. taiwan, singapore, others, so are those technologies silly, and we should forget about them
and just concentrate on attracting them, or could that be important for the u.s.? and if they >> am i going to get a little bit more than five minutes? >> you take whatever time you would like. >> ok, thank you. >> i completely agree with that. i agree -- all the metrics are true. emissions have ground. energy intensity has gotten worse. over 70% of china's primary energy use comes from heavy industry. that is very intensive in terms of the energy consumption. we are looking at massive economic growth and energy use and growth.
the effort is also important as well. if this investment and clean energy were not to take place, what would it be? right now, it has not made as much difference as the chinese government hoped. the power generated from wind deployment in china it is quite a bit lower than what we seek in the united states and also in europe. if you look at the recent five- year plan -- >> is that the amount of lawind? it sounds like some of it is not being put to use. >> the efficiency of the ones that are operating and the total amount. of the ones that are turning, the efficiency is a lot lower.
if you look at the recent five- year plans, the goal is to turn that around. all lot of expertise has to come from european engineers. that is going to china and been hired by chinese companies in very large numbers to help turn things around. the quality and quantity -- it is quality versus quantity. do we want to emulate what we see in china? or do we want affordable clean energy that is higher efficiency that is going to be part of our energy mix in the future? that is the more important question we should consider. that is why i brought up the idea of parity. perhaps that is one goal we should be thinking about. >> can i just make one small
point of context? >> absolutely. >> i take your point. from 1998 until 2002, china was going fine, and their coal use was shrinking. they are growing in a certain grade that is using a lot more energy and a lot more kind of energy and that is swamping the other things they are trying to do. that is a more refined way of saying it. >> ambassador? >> it would be great if china had 15 times the amount of clean energy they have deployed. we are not in that race, it seems to me. when we adopt a clean energy standards, we are not doing it because of trade standards.
what the chinese have done, they have not deployed the best windmills in the world, the best wind turbines. they come from a danish company, an indian company general electric. they kept us all out. they buy the cheapest, but not cheapest in terms of their productivity in terms of generating electricity on a sustainable basis. i am not concerned with their use of -- deploying a great deal of renewal bulls. -- and renewables. it would be nice if they had more clean energy. we do care about being kept out of their market. and we do care about them depressing our production.
>> by flooding it? by keeping us out? or both? >> both. >> you mentioned a clean energy standard. and the state adopting that. minnesota adopted, at the time, the highest renewable energy standards for utilities in the country. it was 25 by 25, that was the goal. our largest utility was charged to go to 35. they are ahead of the goal in achieving it. there are different ways to go at this, but it seems to me, and the chairman has produced a clean energy standards piece of legislation that adopting a national clean energy standard will be something that would
incentivize of the creation of clean energy and renewable -- i would like to have renewable energy standard would then a clean energy standard. something that would incentivize these industries. does anyone disagree on that? [laughter] >> why do you think that would be me? you touched on where i would disagree in exactly what you just said. he moved from clean energy to renewable energy. if you impose a standard like that to incentivize industries, the definition of "clean" to be as broad as possible. >> there are lots of renewable
energy. >> right. i agree with that. -- there are also some clean energy that some people would not count as renewable energy. if the goal is to be clean, let's just be cleaned. if we are worried about running out of something, we have to change the standards. be as broad as possible. >> your issue is be renewable part, not the clean part. >> my issue is speak -- my issue is the definition. we will be pushing people towards a smaller range of choices. >> in this -- in minnesota, it has worked out well in many ways. we have manufacturers in minnesota creating solar panels. we have very good things happening. it promotes diversity, which is what you're talking about.
not tying ourselves -- if you call nuclear clean energy and you call natural-gas clean energy and you call clean coal clean energy, we can get a clean energy standard without gone to any renewable energy whatsoever. if we are going to create diversity, i think putting some renewable is a good idea. there is not just a straight
line where you start developing a technology. it seems like there is a period in terms of jobs creation, and then it kicks out. semiconductors, i mean, it sounds like it started and then it worked. how many people are employed by the internet? during the first 10 years of its development? how many people employed by the internet now? gee, a lot of people. how many people were employed by the space industry -- when i was a kid, our first rockets went
--remember those? we are coming to you by c-span. the cable satellite public affairs network. this is telecommunications. that was started by the government. that did not create a lot of jobs at the beginning. no one knew exactly what that would do. all of our telecommunications, everything comes from not. -- from that.
we subsidize so many successful industries in this country. it is hard to think of one that did not enjoy a government subsidy. the erie canal brought the midwest to europe. so we could ship our agricultural products to europe. that was a government investment. this idea that we should not choose winners or losers, and we should not subsidize industries that have the potential to employ millions of people and to better our lives, you know, at look at the nuclear industry.
we were talking about nuclear as one of the clean energy standards. where would that be without the manhattan project? i think we have to be very careful when we look back at our actual history. i've heard some of my colleagues on the other side, not today, of course, say that this should all be free enterprise, no role for the government. there has been a role for the government in this stuff. well, i know that sounded like a speech, not a question. >> most questions around here sound like speeches. [laughter] >> this was very useful testimony. i appreciated very much.
that will conclude our hearing. >> for more information on the senate energy committee, turned to c-span's congressional directory. you will find each member of the house and senate, including contact information, district maps, and committee assignments. information on supreme court justices and cabinet members. to get the copy, c- span.org/shop. this afternoon, president obama held a campaign rally in cleveland. he compared his plans for the
economy with mitt romney's. you can see the president's speech tonight on c-span2 at 8:00. tomorrow, mitt romney kicks off a bus tour. at 11:00 eastern, and he has a campaign event at a farm in new hampshire. at 2:30, mitt romney has an ice cream social. >> indonesia, hawaii, kansas, chicago, and washington. this weekend on booktv. sunday, starting at 6:00, a video record of his travels. 7:30, david takes your calls and questions. this weekend, conservative commentator blames liberals for an ongoing war on ideas.
>> american politics has been distorted for the last century by this idea that the further we move away from the left, the closer you get too bad things. -- to bad things. >> that is on sunday night at 9:00. >> the fate and freedom coalition is holding its 2012 conference this week in washington. the group heard from two republican senators. both are considered potential running mates for mitt romney. starting the event was the executive director. >> we really appreciate their great work this morning. [applause]
we had a great program for you today. three of the premier centers in the u.s. senate providing leadership -- senators in the u.s. sent providing leadership. this is our ohio coalition share. -- chair. he was reelected as the secretary of state. his public service includes terms as mayor of cincinnati, and u.s. ambassador to the united nations rights commission. is also a senior fellow at the family research council. we're proud to call him one of our own. [applause]
and the list goes on. history does not moved by chance. history is dependent upon men and women who are willing to take a stand in imports and peters of action -- important theaters of action across this country and the world. he is inspired by an ample supply of moral agency. it is what has made him make a difference in anything he has done. he is first and foremost a proud husband and father. he is a stand-up son. his dad was one of a handful of
cincinnatians who brought me into politics and gave me early support. he has had a breadth of experience. he was deputy assistant and director of legislative affairs. he spent 12 years in the house taking on difficult tasks assigned to them by newt gingrich and other leaders of the house. he left the house and he took on top jobs as budget director and as the trade representative for
the united states of america with the rank of ambassador. he was elected in 2010 to the u.s. senate. no matter where he has then, he has done a stand of job. -- no matter where he has been, he has done a stand up the job. he has a sense of what martin luther king called the fierce urgency of now he has an understanding and appreciation of -- that you cannot sit on the sidelines and curse the darkness. you must look for the better angels in your fellow americans and you must light candles. here is a guy who will light
candles about the rest of this career in whatever position he holds. so that we can punch holes in the darkness of our times. come forth because i have an award to give you before you enlighten us on what you see as the future of our country. [applause] i am honored to present on behalf of the faith and freedom coalition this friend of freedom
award for his outstanding work in the 100 told congress. -- 112th congress. [applause] >> thank you very much. i will probably display this in my office. it will remind me of this day and the good work you are doing. all around the country and including my state of ohio. this coalition is making a big difference. it has the potential to change the direction of this country. thank you for those very kind words. ken and i go way back. he also married over his head. he has been a dear friend over the years. he has a couple of titles of his own. ambassador, a statewide elected
official, and since leaving politics, he has quietly played a key role in the state of ohio using his ties and the faith community to help conservative causes and conservative candidates. i am one of the beneficiaries of that. he is also less quietly expressing himself publicly. his views are conservative, consistent, and courageous. thank you for all that you do. [applause] ralph is a dear friend. his friendship, his advice, she
is a smart political guy. -- he is a smart political guy. when you think about it, shortly after a little election in 2008, ralph said we need to do something different. never again shall we have this situation where we are not prepared. you are already making a difference. we're all going to work very hard to ensure that difference translates into some electoral victories, to begin to turn this country around. i cannot hold a job. [laughter] the titles that are much more important to me are husband and
father. those are the ones that i truly cherish. [applause] frankly, public service makes it hard sometimes. it is a challenge. it is tough on your family. i believe it is a noble profession when it is practiced with humility, but it does put a strain on family. you have to believe that you are making a difference for your family, other people's family. but you also have to find your balance. you were only as strong as your core. what of my favorite passages in the new testament comes from the book of james. consider it pure joy when you face trials of any kind. we have all been tested, haven't we? as we are tested, if we turn to our creator for comfort and guidance, what do we find?
we find that our faith is deepened. ken mentioned my work and a first bush white house. i was 35 years old. one day, someone said, one of the assistance of the president is leaving. they would like for you to take the job. at age 35. at the same time, i was given an opportunity, my mom was diagnosed with terminal cancer. i remember like it was yesterday, walking into the chief of staff's a big office in the corner of the west wing. he gave me the job offer. i want you to work for the president. i said, i appreciate it, but i
am going home. it is time for me to go home. he said, what do you mean? he can be a little cranky. why was i going home anyway? i kind of mumbled some things about going back to my private sector life. governor, my mom has been diagnosed with cancer. he came out from behind his big desk, at his eyes were tearing up, he gave me a big hug. he said, you need to go home. he was right. it was the best decision i ever made. my mom was dying of cancer, but she lived for 2.5 more years. and those for glorious years.
i got to spend more time with her. before we lost her, she got to give the invocation at my swearing-in as a new member of congress. [applause] coppin she's -- she started meeting with a prayer group regularly. she knew she was gone to her eternal home. -- go into her eternal home. for 16 years, my father, every day, could not wait for the opportunity to join my mom in heaven. like them, my faith sustains me. i pray every day. sometimes i prayed for guidance on capitol hill, that is needed.
sometimes i am not sure the message i am getting, but i try. [laughter] i have a lot of room to grow. have you ever been to church and you feel let the pastor is talking directly to you? that happened to me on sunday. he gave a great sermon in part of it, he took from the 23rd psalm. in this stressful modern-day life, do not try to do it all yourself. rely on god. he will help you find peace. it struck a chord with me. in the second bush white house i had to high-pressure jobs. trade ambassador and budget director. both of them took to much time away from my family. one day, i was in the cabinet room and looked around the table
and all of my colleagues and i realized every single cabinet member lived in washington. i was going back and forth every week and trying to do the commute. i would get home and spend a whole weekend on for a while i started to get the sense that he needed to come back to this town to help any time when our country is in real
trouble. i saw people lose their jobs. i saw what it was doing to the economy back home. i saw washington growing by irresponsibly growing the size of government. i saw the spending that was growing out of control. i felt called to undertake this challenge. the first up was with my family. jane is an incredible mama. she was ready if i was. i asked my kids what they thought. i loved being home. i was able to coach my daughter's soccer team. we had the family meeting. up andhter sally spoke said "you need to get out of
the house a little bit more." with that, i jumped in. they pitched in. i was able to win that. i came to washington a year and a half ago to write what was wrong to serve our country. -- right what was wrong and to serve our country and to help washington get the country back on track. to help america achieve its promises and to help americans to achieve their god-given potential. it is a tough time for our country. it is the biggest economic depression since the great depression. last week when obama claimed that the private sector was doing just fine, he need to get out more. [laughter] [applause]
what concerns me even more was the context in which he made that statement. it was not just that the private sector was doing fine would we have 20 million americans out of work or underemployed. he said the answer was more government. the private sector is doing fine but we need to hire more people in government and that will get the economy moving again. i do not the most people agree with that. i do not think most economists agree with that. failed leadership has been displayed over the last 3.5 years. i was on a conference call with reporters from back home. the stimulus has worked. how can you say it hasn't? $800 million later? by their own measures, it was supposed to be under six% unemployment. you have to generate economic growth the way we have always done it. it is time on it.
it works. we pulled more people out of poverty than any other system in the history of the world. we're helping free enterprise ito help them achieve their god- given potential. we hear about the unemployment number, at 8.2%, closer to 11%. that does that tell the story, does it? it is not tell the heartache. it does not tell the hardships are families are facing. it puts a strain on families. strong families is what is essential to a healthy society. teaching your children right from wrong is hard. it is harder as parents are stretched thin, struggling to get by. it is through those parents and hard to raise a strong children that the next generation will learn the values that made this
country great. from our declaration of independence and from our creator. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i mean innocent life held sacred from conception until death. [applause] much as i have relied on these welues and american has, also relied on something else. that is prayer and faith to get through the los ardors of trials. as a nation -- through the arduous of trials appeared as a nation, we used it in the civil war that tour as a part in and brought it back together with prayer and faith. through the great depression and the tax of 9/11. our judeo and christian
heritage is to we are. thomas jefferson -- are judeo- christian heritage is who we are. thomas jefferson second the liberties be there? these are a gift of job. look at the memorial. it is there. a place called gettysburg, at lincoln proclaimed that this nation under god shall have a new birth of freedom. lincoln perhaps better than anyone before or since understood the importance of faith in the life of our republic. you see it on the walls of his memorial. almost a century later on june 6 1944, president franklin delano roosevelt chose to share a prayer with a nation rather than a speech on d-day.
as our troops are hitting the beaches in france, and we knew there would be great losses, and there were, at this extraordinary prayer brought inspiration to our country during challenging times. my friend chris along in ohio gave me the idea to promote adding this to the national world war ii memorial at the mall. joe lieberman announced legislation to do this. we read the prayer on the floor of the united states senate. i talked about what a great pleasure it was earlier and what an amazing prayer it is. thank you to all of you in the coalition. gary talked to me about this earlier today. i think we'll get this legislation passed. we appreciate your help.
they are truly incredible. we are so blessed to have them carry. [applause] we pray for them. we pray for our brave women and men in uniform in afghanistan. as president roosevelt parade when he asked god to lead them straight and true, i get straight to their arms, as to their heart, said that this -- straight to their arms, steadfastness in their hearts. most recently it was treated as an after thought that the implementation of the regulations that go as part of the health care bill.
despite concerns expressed a religious employers, employers refuse to back down. it pits health-care against the rights of religion. it covers only charities. to think about this. groups like mother teresa would not qualify because the ask people whether they are hungry, whether they need help, whether they are sick. they did not ask whether they are christians. that is their mission. this is ministration simply does not get it. the protection that asks faith based the groups to abandon no charity at is nobl all. the freedom to live out one
state is a fundamental of an american. it is part of our core. we can assure the right of conscience that george washington called the choicest of our blessings. it is a source of inspiration for the world. our country needs each of you to let your voice is be heard. godspeed in your work. god bless you. >> what a leader, a leader u.s. answer the call. i went like to invite them for our next introduction.
miles terry is our south carolina chairman. please join us. >> i am introducing to use the menu i've looked up for many years. this man has always brought honor and has been our man to represent our state's interest. over the years, one thing has never changed. in the hearts of his south carolina people, he is and and we're proud to call our bomb. we are securing our state in country's future.
he quickly established himself as one of the most effecve conservative leaders in washington, seeking to enact solutions to improve america for future generations to come. in 2006 he is elected as chairman. he was ranked as the senate's most conservative member by the national journal and as a number one senator voting for irresponsible tax and spending policies by the national taxpayers union. he understands our country is found in the values and not solely on its government. he has set a bold course and working to what many consider to be a kingmaker to lecture conservatives to the u.s. senate. on the issues americans are concerned with, and jim demint has been a leader and mentor to the younger leaders in my generation coming behind him. as a welcome him right now, please give him a hearty faith in freedom welcome.
i am not very excited about people who are here. if people get engaged, it they can make a huge difference. what you're doing to get organized gives us hope that we can turn things around and this election. i am very conscious of all the problems and have as a country. i have to remind ourselves how
blessed we are as a nation. we cannot be negative. we cannot be mad. we cannot be angry. we are blessed as a nation. everyone else with like to be here today. this is lot less than the obstacles of those that put their name on the declaration of independence. we should be anxious and ready to go out to take our country back. this country belongs to the people. this is the election to do it. the other thing we need to remember is that this country is exceptional. if we do not understand what makes us an exceptional, we're going to do something like this president does who thinks our
economy is built on government employment. he does not have a clue. he does not understand that our country is that run from the top down. they are making decisions about all areas of our life. we have millions of people's making their own decisions about what they values and what they wanted to do. we came together as communities in churches and families. we were all entrepreneurs by necessity. we treated this waterfall system that the prosperity not only to us but to people all over the world. it was because we are different. now we have people in washington who are trying to make us more like the other countries where they are taking to washington and try to control a bit from here. it is worrisome that if the
think about all the things in our lives that are federal government controls our education system and our health care system. they're a very few things we have not set our tentacles into. it is not working well because of that. america is so resilient and the people are so hard working and innovative that despite what has been happening here america is doing better than any other country in the world. we need to leave our faith that, we get involved in politics say some people. that is counter to what made this country great.
the individuals that built this country, most of them came to this nation to be free to worship. their fate is what gave them that work ethic, that desire to help others. to be faithful to their spouses. that is what gave us freedom. there are two sides of the freedom claim. there's freedom and date. that is what you see in europe were increasingly the bigger the government gets the more secular you become. those values that make as great no longer work. there are very few examples of a working very well.
we're very unique people. we have built a country and like any other. we need to realize we are blessed. we need to know we are in trouble. we are supposed to be a country of limited government. it limits us to what we can do. the other half of the country we have got to get on our side because we are not acting only for them but we are trying to pull those other folks into the land of opportunity and prosperity here trapping this.
this election can change. the reason i believe that is in the last election is that we thought it was a big election. only 29 some of americans even voted. we know we have done the research that half of the evangelicals that sit in church and not even registered to vote. if we get the people to believe as we do to join us at the polls, we can turn things around not only for the present but hopefully for the senate. i was told he cannot change the senate. that was bad news. the senate has been the black hole for good ideas ever since i came to washington when i was in the house. i embarked on a mission to try to do that. i wish to him by millions of americans who were tired of the
status quo in washington. they sent us a lot of the people to the united states senate. in the last few years, you have marco. you have a grand paul. you have ron johnson. these do folks would have had to wait 10 years before they made a difference. the five i just mentioned are probably the top leaders in the senate as far as the conservative movement. it is because the people of around this country made up their mind to change things. they got involved. the reason i'm here today is to realizing itu are is our civic duty and responsibility not only to vote but to help candidates to get others to vote and make sure in this election is one that surely does turn things around. if we can get a conservative
majority in the senate, of which can remove this president to is there now and replace him with mitt romney, i am convinced we have the mandate from the american people to balance our budget, it to stop spending more than we are bringing in, and to restore the freedom that has the values we want. we do not need the government to push our values or our state or our religion. we do need to stop the andernment from purging fak faith from the american way of life. that is what is happening right now. keep working hard. there are a lot of people inside the house and the senate that are really fighting for the same things you are. a lot of people of faith pray every day. we are counting on the people of the united states to get behind us and stand with us to turn this around. thank you for being there.
thank you are having our back. we're glad to keep fighting in working until we get this thing turned around. i appreciate it. [applause] said the surge in demand, ladies and gentlemen. we appreciate your -- senator jim demint, and ladies and gentlemen. we appreciate your leadership. help is on the way. you will have a lot more friends very soon in the u.s. senate. i name is ralph. i am the chairman of the faith and freedom coalition. it is my great honor to welcome our keynote speaker. how many conferences do you get to go to war in the first 45 minutes you get to hear from portman, jim demint, and center
senator marmarco rubio? he is one of the most transformational figures. in a very short time. marco rubio is the son of cuban exile whose life is truly a living, breathing embodiment of the american dream. he represents everything he stands for and all that he has done. the fact that america plays a unique and exceptional role in the history of our planet. when he ran for the u.s. senate in 2009 when very few people gave them a chance, his candidacy captured the imagination of the florida electorate. he was putting forward a plan to restore the promise of this
nation. his parents came here in 1956. he grew up of florida. he graduated from the university of florida. you are being introduced by a georgia bulldog i am sorry to tell you. i am the son of florida gators. he graduated from the university of miami law school. he internes. he served on the county commission. he is elected to the florida house in 2000. in 2006 he was elected by his colleagues to be the speaker of the house where he led the passage of education reform and ushered florida's antiquated tax system into the 21st century and reduce property taxes. when he announced he is going to run for the senate and would square off against the incumbent governor at this state, he was
out raced $600 million. he trailed by more than 30 points in the polls. he demonstrated that a man of character and integrity with a compelling message could defeat all the money and all the endorsements in the world. his was truly a harbinger of the landslide that occurred in 2010. he became so strong in that primary that his opponent action left the party. [cheers and applause] he won a three way election by the remarkable margin of 49 serbs appeared today he sits on the senate commerce committee, the senate foreign relations committee, at the senate select committee. he is a man of deep faith, a devoted father, a loving husband
to his wife. he is a great champion of faith in freedom. we are excited at his new book is good to come out next tuesday. he will be signing copies for you immediately after this luncheon. please welcome one of the finest public servants, senator marco rubio. >> thank you. thank you. i appreciated. that is a very kind introduction. i always tell people that the american dream is that your kids can go up to have a better life in you but it is not a guarantee.
you've had to phenomenal speakers and a great program. i hope you enjoyed the book. it to be out tuesday. i will start signing some of the cards now. i'll speak about it. it was a tribute to my parents and grandparents. it is a tribute to our country and the realization that in america things are possible. why is that? i talk about these things not only to inform but to remind. why did i run for office and those 30 points down decks their days i had significant doubt. their days at a not want to this. i have some pondered getting out of the race and figure out an
excuse. i was blessed that i did not do it. if you read the book you'll see all the things that made that possible. i would have gone up for the wrong reasons. i did not want to be a failure or in paris. i am glad i wrote that and i went through that. this is not about us or our personal ambitions. each of us contributes in a different way. it is in your everyday life in the people you expire that even
the biggest event for our country. those of us look to our fate. christianity spread not only because of the preaching because of the way people live. to be a christian was a capital offense in the roman empire. you know of the instances where they used christians as torch's and lined a lot to make examples of them. early christians and toward this with peace and happiness that inspire those around them to inquire what is about them t? we are called to be ambassadors of our faith. it is the american example. it is not just our laws are
speeches. the sister their children. they accomplished things that they cannot accomplish elsewhere. it is worth examining why. does god happen to love us more than he lets other people? that was all this children. whenever you are asked we are told that politics you must make a choice between your faith or their freedom, between social conservatism and this book conservatism. in some new ways they're in distinguishable. -- bay are indistinguishable. american freedoms are ingrained
in our faith. the declaration of independence are not really political ones. they did not talk about our rights given to us by government leaders. it talks about our right as given to us by our creator. it is an hour heritage as a nation that those principles took flight. that is where it comes from. they did not just make it up one day. they believed in their hearts because of their faith. it is god our creature that endows every human being on the planet, not people born here, but people everywhere matter who your parents were. the matter how your last name is pronounced. no matter how poor you were when you were born. every human being endowed with certain rights that no government, no leader has the right to deny you.
it is one thing to put it in writing. in the government that denies you these rights is an illegitimate government. it is the basis of their objection. it goes on to finish by saying because of this comment because the government has the right to deny you those things, because in a government that does he deny these things is illegitimate, the only park government to have is the power that you agree to give. other people have constitutions and similar writings. then you have to put those principles into practice. if you live in a society that has no faith and encourages the belief that there is no god,
what is the source of your rights. if there is the greater than what is the source of your liberty? a piece of paper? the writing of people's 230 years ago? it reminds is that you cannot have their freedom with that your fate. the source of your freedom is your faith. what have those principles led to? they lead to a system of government. it becomes a captive the hill watched the debate in washington again frustrate you. -- if you come to capitol hill and watch the debate in washington it can frustrate you. and so many other nations in the world right now we solve issues here in america that most people fight wars over.
we do through floor debates that other people do to the exchange of gunfire. we are blessed by that. as frustrated as we may get and the fact that it is thought only the most efficient, i hope every single day you give thanks to god you live in one. the alternative is not very good. those principles also led to a system of economics. it says that what we should have is a system of economics or anyone can accomplish anything. you're not judged by who your parents are and not by whether you into the bright school or have your last name is pronounced, not by whether your parents came on the mayflower, what matters is not that. what matters is do you have a good idea? if you're willing to work hard, you have a god-given right to pursue that idea and have a god-
given right to make it work. do you know with the system of economics has produced? prosperity. increasing prosperity. it is not perfect. we do have pockets of despair. we have people who have been left behind. we have people that find themselves in very unfortunate circumstances. in a society as fathers, husbands, mothers and members of the community at large, we always will have an obligation. rooted deeply in not just our fate of their patriotism to do everything we can for those less fortunate. the best thing we can do is continue to provide a system of economics or upward mobility is possible and we arwhere you
that we have these really good senators who are so smart that they know what is the best for the rest of us. we should listen to them. is the source of our freedom that we have a government that spends its money so wisely that it created jobs and opportunities? that is what one cited the political equation literally believes. we between the lines. you lot more prosperity? and give us more power to pass laws. you want more prosperity? give us the power to take money away from our fellow americans. they say something more. they say things that are to missive by design. they tell our fellow americans that the reasons they are worse off is because of the people of doing too well. the way to reject your job is to raise your boss's taxes. -- to protect your job is to raise your boss's taxes. they pit americans against each
other for purposes of winning an election. that is never who we have been. that is never who we have inspired to be. that is why your activism is important. it matters because of what our country is going to look like. we all want our children to be better off. it is important that we do not allow misinformation to become fact. oftentimes people who hold their faith dearly though guilty about it. people tell you do not impose your values on others. it is never been about imposing our values. it has never been about that. it has been about the fact we want to live in a country with free them so we can lick our values and our lives -- so we can live our values and our lives.
nor had the movement of constitutional conservatism. it is not about leaving people behind. many of us believe there mandated by our fate to care for those less fortunate than ourselves. [applause] it is not one of anarchy. we're not anti-government. one of the great blessings is andt god has given the statio nation the blessings in need to keep this republic. we want our water to be clean. we believe government is an important institution. it is not just the most important institution. as a reminder, while our job is very important but what i do matters a lot, what i do at home
matters more. my job as a father and husband in a member of by church as a neighbor matters more than virtually anything i could ever hope to do in the united states. that is not true for me. you'll always find it in her people in the everyday stories of everyday people who are literally changing the lives of others were person at a time. they get an elderly neighbor a ride to the doctor. they volunteered countless hours at a shelter. they get money to shelter. there are the big brother and a big sister helping people how to read and prosper. they're starting a business that
all starts this. number of their right magazine articles about them. their faces never be on the cover of a newspaper. it is there were life has changed. one person, one family. this matters for americans more than anywhere else. we're not just another country. the american example we need to understand that at its core of the source of our greatness is not our intelligence are even our hard work. those things matter a lot. it is our blessing. america is a great lesson.
blessed with peace. that's a fight no conflicts. the liberal collection of go get is from all of the world, people who refuse to accept the limitations of society. they were brought here by their parents whether it was two or five generations ago in search of a better life. another group of americans are the descendants of men and women who overcame the most vicious institution one could imagine. there after the discrimination that follows. they overcame those things to stake their claim. this is literally who we are. this is our dna. we're collection of the world 's go getters.
are circumstances were limited by who we were born to. this inspires the world. no matter whether they agree with us are not, ignatius and people look to us and find inspiration. they find the reality. if it is possible here, it can be possible there. why can they not try to do this their dads this is where the american life and example of the world happen.
do want to continue to be that? are we prepared to become like everybody else? that is not a product of choice. this requires us to dubai what gosbee richard requires us to confront those before i -- this requires us to confront those before us. arcade teaches us that much is given a much is expected. at the end of our lives we will all be held to account whether we had one talents or three. we will be asked what we do with these talents for those of us to share the christian faith. and talk about this terrible in my book. i talk about how it applies to me -- i talk about this terparable in my book. i talk about how it applies to me. we'll also be accountable and our role in america. all of us we will be held
accountable for what we did. one of the blessings we have had is that of america. the opportunity to live in a free and prosperous society. what did you do with it? did you take it for yourself? the use it to live 81 years of life? was it about more? was it about serving their fellow man and leaving their children with the opportunity to do not have? was it about raising your voice is to confront and justiinjusti? was it standing for the cause of liberty and freedom? we know that is not just an american principle. it is a faith-based principle that applies to all mankind. what did you do american? did you think this was just about enjoying your time and having the most fun you could? did you realize that with your
blessings commit special obligation to continue through your example to inspire and give hope to the helpless. there was a way to live a better life. we will be asked about that, too. now we are asked to do what every generation before us had to do, it decide whether we will use these blessings or take them for ourselves. we're not just less. airbus that we can get. the american is as great as they have ever been. there's a reason why that cannot be. the promise of this new century is real. all over the world millions of people who just a decade ago lived in poverty are now part of the middle-class. for america, that is great news. they want to buy the stuff we invent and build. they want to leave their hard earned dollars at our tourist
destination. the one to follow our example of freedom and democracy. -- they want to follow our example of freedom and democracy. why would we ever had the other way? -- head the other way? let me close by saying what you do matters a lot on a daily basis and the lives that you touch. it will matter more. what is truly at stake in 2012 and years to come is not just which party controls washington or which leader lives in the white house. what is at stake is our very identity. there is no reason why the 21st century cannot be an american sentry as well. for more people and more places than ever before. the only thing standing between a new american century and today is our willingness to do what it takes. thank you for the opportunity.
thank you. [applause] >> if you do not think what matters, think of 10 or 20 more like this. senator rubio, we appreciate your witness and leadership and your friendship. it is a great honor for me to awardt to you be friend and receiving a 100 service corps on all the boats -- 100% score on all the votes.
[applause] take your seats for just 30 seconds. he is going to head to the signing. you will receive the opportunity as soon as we adjourned to purchase the book and have i guess the book plate signed. then i will call gary on up. i think he has some announcements related to that as well as our citizen lobby on the hill. thank you. >> we have one more very special moment in our program. i want to say thank you for the lady that is here. we appreciate the women that are joining us. we appreciate the amazing leave
leaders that are here. without further ado, all we have another special moment of deep spiritual and eternal significance. to share that moment with us, we have from the friends of israel leadership team, the chairmen and special. >> good afternoon. i am ramon martinez, a retired colonel for the united states air force. it is really an honor to be here to address you, such a distinguished group. in 1987, our organization commissioned a painting of the first prime minister of israel. the painting was a monumental work highlighting israel's declaration of independence. what made it even more special
was that it would soon contain the signatures of some very distinguished people. over 100 people signed this portrait including president carter and president reagan. if you observe the portrait, but the painting is using each of the hebrew letters of the declaration of independence. 25 years later we are we confirming this amazing piece of history by gathering signatures of today's leaders. with that, i would like to turn the microphone over to france for israel represents thises joseph -- representatives, joseph. we chose them because of his many years and devotion advocating for freedom, democracy, justice, and
prosperity in the united states as well as israel. joe is currently running for the united states congress for district 20, which is representated by debbie washerman schulz. for all of you people, please come by, say hello to jill and give him your financial support. -- joe and give him your financial support. we need to send a message that is compelling. that message is hope has been an unfulfilled expectation. that is what change will look like now. i present to you.
>> thank you. it is an honor for me to address my friends at the faith and for the coalition. i am so proud to be here on this occasion to present this work. it is a work of monumental proportions, of bringing together leaders such as president ronald reagan and george bush, prime minister's benjamin netanyahu and margaret thatcher. within the painting itself, one can view of israel's declaration of independence, part of which states the following "we offer peace and unity to all of the neighboring states and their peoples and invite them to cooperate with the independent jewish nation for the common good of all."
of course, we know that that barely ever to colts as israel has suffered an attack after -- . the one partner they had, egypt, barack obama turned his back on some of the country will soon be ruled by the muslim brotherhood with hamas having free rein. we must stand by israel. as is israel so goes the united states. few individuals node this as much as a ralph reed. he is one of israel's great his friends. it is truly an honor to give him -- greatest friends. it is surely an honored to get him an award and to hang
alongside the original signatures from this day forever. ladies and gentlemen, i present the first pen it to faith and freedom coalition founder and chairman, ralph reed. [applause] >> it is a special moment of significance whenever we remember our greatest allies, the nation of israel. [applause] >> as you exit, you will be given your a lot the packets to head up to capitol hill. the see all your senators and swing by your house member offices as well.
share with them your concern about the important issues, whether there are economic, social, or national security. we are concerned about all of them. inn we will see at 5:30 h137. we afford to seeing you there. go see senator marco rubio out there. in the books will be sent to you in the next week. thank you so much. i agree afternoon. -- have a great afternoon. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
back, mitch mcconnell, and newt gingrich. it'>> and david cameron testifid today. that is next on c-span. president obama gave a speech on the economy today and ohio. he said a victory in november would mean a return to the policies of george w. bush. we will bring the president obama's remarks later. mitt romney kicks off a campaign bus toward tomorrow in new hampshire. he is calling it the believe and america -- every town council bus tour. bus tour.