were complying the self-regulatory effort seemed to be limited to allowing the consumer to opt out of behaviorally targeted advertising but not the collection of information that makes targeting possible. tracking of the tracker study found 33 members either left tracking cookies or users computers were installed tracking cookies after the users opted out. the firm seemed to argue they could keep cookies on your machine as long as those cookies aren't being used to create specifically targeted -- i also understand republican majority stated it is not sure whether of legislation is needed and it does not intend to move too quickly on this issue. i think it is well past time to move ahead. there were six privacy hearings in the 111th congress and six

privacy -- in each of those hearings making me more convinced current law does not insure proper privacy protection for consumer information. as i stated in the past i am ready to work with my colleagues. it is not a partisan issue and should not be a partisan issue. we have to give consumers the tools to protect their privacy without unduly burdening industry were stifling innovation. that should be our goal. the hearing can move us in that direction and our look forward to the testimony we are going to receive. am i permitted to reserve this time? >> you are allowed to yield your time. >> i would like to yield to mr marky. >> it is good to see you in the chair. nancy pelosi has -- [inaudible] -- good to see a republican as

well in such a position. in may i introduced bipartisan legislation to strengthen privacy safeguards for children and teenagers. the do not track kids act would update the childrens' online privacy protection act for the twenty-first century to cover new applications like deal location technologies that didn't exist when we passed the children's privacy act 13 years ago that i was the author of. that bill is the communications constitution when it comes to protecting kids on line but we need to amend it to take into account the explosive growth and innovation in the online ecosystem since 1998. 1998 was way back in the before facebook your a. our bill also contains common

sense protections for teenagers. a digital marketing bill of rights stipulates online apps and operators -- clearly explain why they need to collect the data and prohibits operators from collecting deal location and information without permission of parents when talking about children and includes an eraser button. that is that important privacy protection that requires operators of online applications that display personal information about children to enable users to e race or eliminate publicly available personal information on web site about children. i would hope the least we can accomplish is to provide a privacy bill of rights for children. we can see what the implications are if that information gets hacked and my hope is we can update the 1999 law to accomplish that goal.

i think the gentleman from california. >> the chair recognizes mr. barton for five minute. >> i appreciate you holding this hearing. i want to associate myself with what mr. waxman and mr. markey just said. if you have joe barton and mr. marky on a bill you cover the political spectrum not only of this committee but of a congress and i couldn't agree more with what former chairman waxman and current ranking member waxman said that privacy is not a partisan issue and i do believe as he said that it is time to act and hopefully this hearing and several others we already had with the testimony we hope to hear from our administration officials will lead to action in this congress. i am co-chairman of the privacy

caucus and have been an advocate for privacy for almost 20 years in congress. in this year alone i have sent letters, most of them with mr. marky or mr. walden or others to facebook, at&t, sprint, the college board, act and even the social security administration questioning activities they have engaged in that appear to impinge on our citizens's privacy. i have also introduced h.r. 1895, the do not track kids act of 2011. this legislation has five important things. it updates the online privacy protection act of 1998 and add protections for our citizens between the ages of 13, and 17. it would prohibit an internet

company from sending targeted advertising for children and miners and prohibit internet companies from collecting personal and location information from anyone less than 13 years of age without parental consent and anyone less than 18 without individual consent. it would require web site operators to develop an eraser button which would give children and miners the ability to request to e raise personal information they did not wish available on the internet. the time has come, we know we need a vigorous internet. we know we need a vibrant economy. we should all agree that we certainly need to protect our privacy in the internet age as much as we did to the age before the internet. with that i would like to yield the balance of my time to mr.

olson of texas for such comments as he wishes to make. >> i thank my colleague from texas and i think chairman upton, walden, for your leadership in calling this important hearing. as this is my first privacy related hearing i am approaching the issue with an open mind but not an empty mind. i think the key to approaching privacy is balance, transparency and facts and that is why we are here today. consumers are increasingly aware of their own privacy. it is important for them to know what information is collected about them and how it is being used. in today's economy information is a valuable commodity. we have to examine the many benefits of internet and data collection for consumers and our economy and balance those

legitimately privacy concerns. we cannot legislate in search of a problem. i look forward to this important issue and play in a proactive role in the future of privacy discussions. i thank my colleague from texas for the time and yield back. >> i am happy to recognize the gentleman from georgia for one minute. >> i am glad we are meeting to discuss this issue. it is important to a lot of people more than most people realize. they don't realize how much they open themselves up and how much information is being misused every time they go on line. in the interest of time i will cut to the chase. i understand the need, industry's need for a legitimate playing field across the country and customers need and different sides of the same state out -- boundaries for reasonable expectation of privacy. come down on the side of

privacy. i mentioned understanding how we can set forth rules of the road for a good industry and protect the same -- same expectation people have on different sides of the same state boundary. folks have a right to expect privacy no matter where they live. i look forward to discussing how we can do this and i believe this hearing is a big step in that direction. i thank our witnesses for addressing these concerns. >> the chair recognizes the gentlelady ms. matsui. >> i would like to thank the distinguished panelists for being with us this morning. nice to see you all on this important issue. americans rely on a variety of services for a number of activities including social networking and navigation and mapping services among many others. as we all know in today's economy information is everything to everyone.

we also know technology changes continuously every day. what is new today will not be new tomorrow. we must continue to encourage american innovation and foster growth and development of the next generation technologies. it is also essential we properly protect private and personal information of consumers particularly our young people. privacy policy and disclosure should be clear and transparent. we should also understand the scope of information being collected and what it is being used for and length of time it is being retained and its security. ultimately meaningful privacy safeguards should be in place by assuring we don't stifle innovation. clearly it is a fine balance. i thank you again for holding this important hearing today and i look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue and i yield back my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentlelady from illinois for one

minute. >> i want to thank you for holding today's hearing and i want to say i appreciate the work we have done over several years on the issue of internet security and leadership on this issue. as a longtime consumer advocate i have serious concerns about tracking practices especially the undisclosed data gathering of user behavior. i am an original sponsor of do not track the online act which would establish standards for consumer friendly do not track mechanism and the co-sponsor, do not track kids act which would offer protection against tracking of children and teens and i urge the committee to consider these and other solutions to the tracking issue as soon as possible. i associate myself with my colleagues who want more answers on a hacking scandal of the murdoch enterprises. we must hold internet service

providers and search engines accountable. we have to hold service providers accountable for their actions and i look forward to hearing from our panel today. i yield back. >> i think the gentlelady and thank my colleagues for their opening statement that we turn our attention to a panel. one panel of witnesses joins us today. has prepared an opening statement that will be placed into the record. you will have five minutes to summarize the statement in your remarks. we have the hon. julius genachowski of the federal communications commission, the hon. edith ramirez of the federal trade commission and lawrence strickland of the telecommunications and information administration. we welcome you back to the hearing room. you will be recognized for five minute and i'm sure you are familiar with the timers on the table. when the light turns yellow you

have one minute left. as i have been at vonage make sure your microphone is on and close to your mouth. i am pleased to recognize commissioner ramirez for five minutes. >> thank you. ranking members butterfield and eshoo and members of the subcommittee i am edith ramirez of the federal trade commission. i appreciate the chance to present the testimony and internet privacy. personal information about consumers may be collected, sold and used in every interaction a consumer has. both online and offline. for instance a college freshman sits in her dorm room using the internet to research depression for paper she is writing for psychology class. when her research is done she applies online for student loans to help her pay her tuition. later she grabs her smart phone which she uses to find the

closest drugstore. uses a loyalty card to get discounts. when the student is back online surfing the net and keeping up with friend on a social network >> advertisements for medication for depression and in light the as well as ads for high interest credit cards and loans. these activities made possible by technology unimaginable years ago offer clear benefits to the student. shea angela easy access to information and receive discounts at the drugstore and connected with friends all in the course of two hours. that the student is unaware that data about her drug for purchases, web activity and location may be sold today at brokers she never heard of and added to the growing digital profile about her. she may not know this information may be used for marketing purposes or to make decisions about her eligibility for credit and she might be surprise to learn her research

into depression may be included in her digital profile and could be used when she applied for life insurance or might be sold to prospective employers when she graduates a few years later. the student is not alone in her lack of awareness that vast quantities of information about her are sold every day. most consumers have no idea so much information can be accumulated and shared among so many companies including employers, retailers, data brokers, lenders and insurance companies. the ftc wants consumers to have an effective notice and meaningful choices about what data is collected about them and how it is used. that will engender consumer confidence and trust that are essential for industry to continue to innovate and flourish. for decades the ftc has been the nation's leading enforcer and consumer privacy. during this time we have engaged in substantial policy initiatives and educated

consumers and businesses on privacy and data security. in recent months we bought a number of enforcement actions in the ariane as described in our written testimony. two weeks ago we announced an action against the company that sold lists identifying cash strapped consumers to marketers in violation that their credit reporting act. the company has agreed to pay the $1.8 million civil penalty and submit to a court order that ensures consumers sensitive credit report information is not sold for marketing purposes. privacy continues to be at the forefront of the policy agenda. in december commission staff issued a preliminary privacy report that recommended three bedrock principles. the first is privacy by design. the idea companies should embed privacy protection in the products and services from the start. second companies should present choices about privacy of

personal data in simple ways and making decisions about that data. third companies should improve transparency of their privacy practices by promoting competition on privacy. finally the staff report called for adoption of do not track. 1-stop tool for consumers to control online behavioral tracking. the commission has not taken a position whether that legislation is needed but a majority of commissioners myself included support widespread implementation of do not track. in closing the commission appreciates the committee's focus on consumer privacy and data security and we're prepared to provide any assistance you may need on these critical issues. thank you. >> the chair is pleased to recognize chairman genachowski for his five minutes. >> thank you to the chairs and ranking members for holding this important joint hearing.

the right to privacy is a fundamental american values and the federal communications commission has worked to implement congressional laws that protect privacy of consumers when they use communications networks. the internet and other new forms of communications raise difficult privacy challenges particularly when it comes to children. the fcc is committed to working with congress, department of commerce and colleagues across government and industry and all external stakeholders to tackle these issues. to understand the importance of privacy in the digital age one must appreciate the extraordinary opportunities created by broadband internet services. high-speed internet, text and mobil is a platform for economic growth, for global competitiveness and opportunity to transform education, healthcare, energy and public safety. to realize the benefit of broadband people need to trust the internet and all communications networks are safe

and secure. as our national broadband plan found privacy concerns are a barrier to broadband auctions. when people and small businesses fear new technology puts their privacy at risk they are less likely to use those new technologies. consider location services. this growing sector will deliver $700 billion in value to consumers and businesses over the next decade. two weeks ago the fcc hosted a workshop on location based services which identified consumer concerns about the use and concerns of their information as something that must be addressed to seize other benefits of this new technology. we need to strike a smart balance insuring private information is fully protected and at the same time ensuring a climate that encourages new investment and new innovation that will create jobs and improve quality of life.

at the fcc we approach three overarching goal. consumer control and choice, meaningful transparency about privacy practices, and data security. the communications act charges the fcc with implementing a number of privacy protection provisions. section 222 and 631 gives authority to protect privacy and security of the network related data of telephone, cable and satellite providers and working to educate consumers and small business about privacy and data security. we held a cybersecurity to cheat to help small businesses understand basic precautions to secure their networks and data with which we partnered with the chamber of commerce, national urban league and others to distribute. to make sure consumers are getting consistent and clear information and guidance we partnered with the federal trade commission and commerce department and small business administration on a number of

education efforts like on guard on line which has advised how to protect children's personal information and guard against identity theft. these efforts are part of an established track record with effective coordination between the fcc and other agencies. the technology can and must be part of the solution. i continue to encourage industry to take this very seriously. to use its expertise to empower consumers, and protect the data. as the government expert agency on broadband communication networks with a long history of taking common-sense steps to protect consumer privacy the fcc has an important role going forward. our network focused privacy rules are settled and legally tested. some updating of the communications act that were oriented privacy regime is appropriate for the digital age and can be done with implementation of any generally

applicable data security legislation. we look forward to working with congress and my colleagues at the table and elsewhere and all stakeholders outside government to harness technology to promote innovation, job creation and growth while protecting fundamentally important principles of privacy. thank you for the opportunity to testify and i look forward to your questions. >> secretary strickland, you are recognized for five minutes. >> chairman walden, ranking members butterfield and eshoo, thank you for inviting the participation of ntia. i'm glad to be here with mr. genachowski to protect consumers and promoting economic growth. for the past two years ntia has been hard at work to conduct a broad assessment of how well our

current framework is serving participants in the internet economy. we have focused on two key principles. you heard them from the other witnesses this morning. the first is the idea of trust. is imperative for sustainability and continued growth and innovation of the internet that we preserve the trust of all actors on the internet and nowhere is this clearer that in the context of consumer privacy. our second key principle is we want to encourage multistate colder processes to address these key policy issues. we want all stakeholders to deal with these issues in a way that allows flexibility, speed and the efficiency. we want to avoid delay and lack of quick response often associated with more traditional regulatory processes. the department issued a green paper on consumer data privacy

which issued ten policy recommendations and asked for public input on a series of additional questions. in this document we propose a three part framework for consumer data privacy. we called for the establishment of baseline computer data privacy protection whether flexible, comprehensive and enforceable by the federal trade commission. we refer to this as consumer privacy bill of rights. the set of basic principles would provide clear privacy protection for personal data in which federal privacy laws that exist today janata plot or offer inadequate protection. second to flush out the principles and more specific rules of behavior we recommend we rely on stakeholders in the industry working with civil society and others to develop and forcible codes of conduct through a multi stakeholder process. in our proposal these codes would implement basic consumer protections but their adoption would be voluntary and we

recommend strengthening the ftc consumer data privacy enforcement authority. i believe our approach should welcome and attract bipartisan support. it is neither traditional top-down regulation or is it self regulation. the word that vice chair carey used in his opening remarks provide the real balance between consumer protection and meeting the needs of industry to continue to grow and in of 8. in march of this year after engaging further with a wide array of stakeholders the administration announced support for legislation that will help better protect consumer privacy in the digital age by establishing baseline protection consumers need in legislation and they brought stakeholders' including many businesses expressed support for this approach. specifically this legislation would provide consumers with more consistent privacy protection thereby strengthening trust and preserving the

internet as an engine of economic growth. legislation would provide businesses with a common set of ground rules and put the united states in a stronger position to work toward reducing international barriers to trade in the free flow of information. recommendations for this baseline are based on a comprehensive set of fair information practices principles. in our green paper we drew from existing statements as the starting point for principles that should apply in the new commercial context and as we develop a more definitive administration position we are now examining how these would apply to the interactive and interconnected world of today. the department is continuing to work with others to develop the administration policy on data security. without sufficient data security there cannot be effective data privacy. in may the administration submitted a legislative proposal to improve cybersecurity which

includes proposals to strengthen consumer protection in the case of data breaches. the administration proposal would help business by standardizing existing patchwork of state laws within nationwide requirement and helped ensure consumers receive notification when appropriate standards are met. i want to thank you for holding today's hearing and for the two subcommittees' commitment to addressing consumer data privacy issues. we can protect consumers in the digital age as well as help businesses expand by reducing barriers to trade and international commerce. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for your unique insight. i will recognize myself for five minutes for questions. chairman genachowski, we have seen the phone hacking scandal. are you satisfied there are safeguards to prevent similar privacy breaches or should

americans be concerned? as mobile devices become integrated and consumer use them for critical functions like banking will we see an explosion of hacking incidents? >> there are several laws in place that address hacking issues. there are federal wiretapping laws that prevent unauthorized hacking. packing by definition is unauthorized. there are provisions of the communications act that criminalize interception of communications and there are state of laws that prevent any hacking of phones should be investigated. there are criminal provisions that should be addressed very seriously. there are also issues around the security devices themselves. several years ago there was an effort to improve phones

including voice mail by providing password protection. many carriers automatically provide password protection for voicemail. others give consumers the choice. no question greater protection can be accomplished by using a password protection and that should be looked at. >> commissioner ramirez, the question why regulation is needed is a policy question you must decide. if regulation is needed presumably consumer injury is seeking to prevent setting aside data security related to personally identifiable information where we know the potential harm of identity theft and other unlawful conduct, what is the harm of injury when we discuss internet privacy? are you aware of specific cases

or examples? >> the fundamental issue we are trying to address is the issue that increasingly information is being used in unexpected ways. consumers simply do not know how the information that is being collected about them is being -- what information is being collected and how that data is being used. ..

>> that's not necessary conclusive evidence that consumers don't care about their information but it must mean something. what is the commission doing to find out how consumers feel about privacy and the use of that? >> we do know from public reports that their survey after survey that shows consumers are increasingly concerned about how their information is being used. they are concerned about privacy. we know from public reports that there have been outcry by the part of the public when certain companies have not provided basic privacy protections for them. furthermore, industry itself has recognized that there is a need for increased and greater consumer trust. digital advertising alliance has conducted a study and they recognize that there is a greater need to have consumers, have greater place in the market

place in our for market place to continue to flourish and for innovation to be promoted. >> that is, the federal government hasn't done a study in what, 10 years? you are any of the other agencies have a plan to conduct another study soon to gather hard data? >> what we have done is process, laying the groundwork for the report that was issued by his death in december of last year. agency conducted a series of public roundtable soliciting input from all relevant stakeholders that include industry, consumers, academics, technologists. we've also solicited written comments and received approximate 450 written comments that are currently being analyzed by staff, and the agency intends to issue a final report later this year. >> i think the commissioner. the chair now recognizes mr. waxman for five minutes. >> thank you very much for recognizing me. the committee will soon be

marking up a data security bill. that market may involve finding that data must be secured. one approach might include requiring all data to have some minimum level of security, stored in the cloud or as it travels over a dumb pipe. under section 222 of the committee patient's act, customer proprietary network information must be protected. cpni and includes the time, date, duration and destination, destination number of each goal. and any other information that appears on the consumers telephone bill. under the cable act, cable operators are supposed to secure personally identifiable information. that term is not defined. under the chair's draft proposal, the term personal information means an

individual's name or address, or phone number. in combination with an identifying number such as social security number or driver's license number, or financial account number, but only if there's also the required security code or password. i agree with commissioner ramirez that this is a very narrow definition. mr. strickling, we know what the administration thinks should be covered thanks to its draft proposal so i won't need to ask you to answer this one, but i'm going to run through a long list and i'd like to hear from chairman genachowski and commissioner ramirez to tell me, answer yes or no, to the following types of data the required to be secured. commission, which everyone of you, ip address? jenna chucky? >> yes. i think the cpni rules with insulin at the fcc are very good starting point, yes.

>> yes. >> how about any unique persistent identifiers such as a customer number or user alias such as a facebook user name and/or password? >> mr. mayor? >> yes, if it could be linked to a specific individual or computer device, yes. >> i would agree. >> how about medical history information, visit coal or mental conditions and information regarding the provision of health care to the individual? >> yes. >> yes, i would agree. any of these commonsense things people would expect should be kept secure. >> they are not in the bill now, so try and to get the record indicate you think ought to be protected. race or ethnicity? >> yes. >> i would assume so. >> religious beliefs and affiliations, sexual orientation or sexual behavior, do you agree those ought to be covert? >> i do. >> yes. >> mother's maiden name? >> yes. >> i would assume so.

i have thought about that. >> a lot of websites as for your mother's maiden name. income, assets, liabilities or financial records and other financial information associated with a financial account, including allen's is an other financial information. >> yes. >> agree. >> resize location information and other information about the individual activities and relationships associated with such geolocation? >> yes. >> agree. >> unique biometric data including a fingerprint or retina scan? >> yes. >> agree. >> commissioner ramirez, when you hear a few weeks ago to testify about the republican strapped data security bill, he mentioned the federal trade commission is concerned about the limited scope of personal information that would be subject to the bill data security and breach notification requirement. in particular you discuss health information collected from companies not covered by the hipaa law. i agree the ftc should be

concerned about this but i have another concern. it's not clear to me what would happen when a company that is breached can argue that it does not know what type of information was breached. recently we heard of an extensive reached at dropbox. dropbox is a popular cloud computing service that allows its 25 million users to store documents and other files on its servers. these users may store and itunes documents like a grocery list, pictures, or they may store sensitive information such as an application for a loan or compromising or embarrassing photos. dropbox could argue that it is a cloud provide of stores that doesn't know what its users put there and that those users expect not to go snooping through their files to find out. shouldn't dropbox and companies like you be required to have a certain level of data security? and similarly, shouldn't dropbox in countries like it be required

to notify its customers of a breach, even if it does not matter what data it holds? >> i'm not in position to comment on specific practices but what i will say is that companies should provide reasonable security for personal information and private information. of consumers. so depending on the nature of the specific facts and depending the information that is being stored, and the size of the company, a number of other factors, reasonable security measures ought to be provided, yes. >> thank you very much. >> thank the chairman. the chair is pleased to recognize chairmen walden for five minutes. >> i thank the chair when for that, and if i might enter into the colloquy with the former chairman, could you just tell us what bill you were referencing? we were trying to figure that out over here. >> it's a trap that has not been introduced them but we have a

market and consumer affairs committee next wednesday, as i understand. >> i'm not on that committee. we were just curious what it was. >> this is a joint hearing of the subcommittee's. >> mr. strickling, i'm kind of interested in some of the things that your colleagues here were able to comment on. does the administration's position through your ntia legislation, you share those same positions as were articulated by the fcc and -- >> the administration put forward and made a proposal for data breach legislation that covered many, i can't say all, of the items that congressman waxman listed out for these folks, but many others such as the unique biometric data, unique account identifiers. those all within a category. >> were there any that were articulated here that you would disagree with? >> there might be some. i would reserve judgment on but none i would disagree with on

the list today. >> thank you. chairman genachowski, and commissioner ramirez, i'm concerned about the and even competitive playing field given the convergence of key medications out there, the market place 50 think it's fair for competitively -- you think it's fair or competitively neutral to apply privacy protections carriers but not, for example, operating systems, offering system providers like apple who have access to exactly the same consumer information? >> the level playing field is a completely reasonable goal. how to achieve it is obvious a harder question, and to the extent that different sectors come from different backgrounds and different competitive frameworks, the exact regulatory scheme might be different, but at the end of the day i agree on your principles of technology,

technological and competitive net travel the. >> commissioner? >> isles also agree there should be a level playing field. from the ftc's perspective it's important consumers be provided with basic privacy protection. the respected of the into this providing the service, so the agency does take the view that if there is legislation, the agency out of jurisdiction over telecom common carriers. >> chairman genachowski? >> there is a long-standing, we disagree with our friends on the federal trade commission on this point. >> i wondered about that. >> the fcc brings years of experience and expertise operating under congressional statutes with respect and networks, wired and wireless come and privacy issues around them. that system has worked well. and any revisions to the statutory framework comment in

my strong opinion, should continue to recognize and take advantage of this long history of expertise. now, our two agencies have worked very well together, cooperatively and collaboratively spirit i think it's important there's some cop on the beat if you allow me to use that, some countries about the commission's actions to enforce its cpni rules and other and sewer privacy protections. can you elaborate on that process of? >> first of all there's an ongoing education process should the companies are certifying as to the compliant and on a regular basis our enforcement bureau issues notices ally does when companies are not doing that. over the years issues have emerged that the commission has taken action on. some people may remove the pretexting discussion of a number of years ago where it was found that people were posing in order to gain access to records, the commission at that point

adopted some commonsense rules to make it clear that that couldn't happen and to put in place opt out provisions -- opt in requirements for third party efforts to access data. >> commissioner ramirez? >> i want to clarify i was by no means suggesting that fcc's role should be displaced you. all i was saying that we do believe the ftc has significant enforcement experience that out to be brought to bear here. >> mr. strickling, you want to comment on any of that? >> i was hoping to stay out of that actually. [laughter] >> i figured it that's what i thought i would ask you. >> i think what i will say is that the framework we are proposing, which would apply to all of industry, does not intend by it, by the proposal are making to displace sector specific regulation if there's a need for that, and i think we could all agree that there certain industries such as the financial services and health

care industry where think additional protections are absolutely justified. >> indeed. we appreciate your testimony today, and working with you as we go forward to do with this issue that we're all affected by and want to do the right thing on. thank you, madam chairman,. >> thank you. and recognize now the gentlelady from california, ms. as you for five minutes. >> thank you again, madam chairwoman. thank you to each of you for your testimony. and for the work that you've done on this. i mentioned in my opening statement that we need a unified approach, and i really respect and appreciate the work that you been doing, each agency is taking on what they are taking on. it's the same subject matter but it's very difficult for me to see how this is all stitched together so there's a comprehensive policy for the country. i think we can draw from the work you are doing, but i think

that, that the congress really either needs to update some of the laws that are on the books, or do something that is overarching that is going to protect innovation, but also speak to, what, the second decade of the 21st century that we are already in. that's my sense of what i've heard. chairman genachowski, under current law does the fcc have authority over isps to ensure that the proprietary network information of internet customers is not being sold to third parties or used for the isps own marketing efforts of? >> that is an area where clarification of the communications act would be helpful. there's uncertainty and unpredictability about that now. and and think about a level playing field, looking at telcos, cable satellite where there is clear jurisdiction of voice over internet telephone

service, where the fcc has acted as well, this center of clarification would be very helpful. in the absence speedy you do need legislative clarification? >> yes. >> i hope all the members heard that. >> legislative their vacation would be beneficial and would eliminate uncertainty. >> each word accounts. each word counts. help me with this. and whomever wants to lean in on this. we are all concerned about children, and i think it's -- if they were to be a starting place, you know, i think that we could develop a consensus around that because i think incenses already exists on it. children, no matter what, are always the most vulnerable. no matter what the category is we speak of. i think just about across the board that applies.

now, if we're talking about children versus those that are a little older but are still teenagers, who's going to tell the truth about their age? when they are online, you know, i mean, if it's an 11 year old, which is probably more adept at, you know, traveling all of these lanes, then someone that is 32 years old, that there is a restriction because of their age. why would they tell the truth? so, it seems to me that, this is something that we need to figure out. i don't know how we protect children if, in fact, we start out with that as an approach to this issue of privacy and all

the is attached to it. have any of the agencies given thought to this? and if so, what is it? >> i'll take the lead, if i may. the ftc has certainly thought about these issues and you certainly raise some very important practical concerns. the agency is currently undergoing a review of the rules, and staff is analyzing comments -- >> when i going to finish that? >> we are moving forward with that and expect to be coming out with recommendations shortly. >> but does it this issue? >> well, i can't comment on the specific recommendations ultimately made by will tell you -- >> i'm not asking what your recommendation is going to be. i'm asking you if you're examining this specific issue of? >> the practical difficulties that do apply when applying the statute, yes. and in particular the issues

frankly become great concern when one thinks about teenagers who may raise even more specific concerns along those lines and that's an issue that we are also seeking comment on and will be addressing in our final -- >> my time is running out. mr. chairman? >> i agree a focus on children as a starting point is something that should be strongly looked at. part of the reason is it's an area where the widest consensus that has a parent that we are to make sure that we know how to basically protect our children and that the internet is a safe place for them as well as a place they can learn. >> are you looking at the? >> we are looking at it with respect to communications networks, and we've been looking to shut working with innovators in the area encourage them to develop tools that i was in your district a couple of months ago, at the computer history museum we organize a showcase of tools and technologies that were being developed to help parents exactly with these issues on

what. >> a lot of countries are becoming that much more sensitive. my time has run out but i think that this hearing is most helpful to move this issue alone. thank you. >> now recognize the vice chair of the subcommittee, ms. blackburn for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. thank you all for your patience. ms. ramirez, i want to go back, in your testimony you have stated that you thought the harm was lack of choice or lack of knowledge of how their information is being used. and your comments about the public. so, what i am wanting to know from you is, do you think that is justification for implementing do not track? are you going to come forward and identify some real harms so that you are articulating what the bad practices or the bad actions are that would require do not track, addressing an are you planning to do any market

analysis and market impact, any steps that you come forward with? >> let me emphasize that the commission is not advocating legislation in the privacy iran at this time. what we have done is to put out a broad framework of best practices that we recommend industry, and also a framework that policymakers can do better, should congress decide to pursue legislation in this arena. asked your specific question regarding do not track, that's just simply one element and one aspect of the recommendations that relates solely to behavioral advertising specs are you are not wedded to that as a tablet? >> what we have stated and the majority of those on the commission to advocate, universal do not track mechanism, we've identified several elements that we think are important. >> are you separating the online advertising from some of the aggressive social media

networking as you do that analysis? are you separating those two transactions the? >> again online advertising we do believe the majority of us to believe that there should be a do not track mechanism to give consumers greater choice about what information about them is collected and how that information is -- >> let me move on. the supreme court case, the court struck down vermont's prescription confidentiality act. and vermont's law restricted the ability of the pharmacists and drug manufacturers from using previous prescription data for marketing. legal experts have claimed that this caseload implications for existing and proposed privacy laws. so yes or no, do you agree with the supreme court's ruling that restrictions on the collection and use of data that's first past the first amendment scrutiny?

>> i.t. believe that if there's legislation enacted in this arena, there need to be considerations that were identified the supreme court in that particular case. >> you believe the government must defer to less restrictive alternatives and remedying privacy harms as the court found in the recent case? >> again, i think the applicable standards of principles apply. >> all right. let me move on with you think it has anyone asked about what you all are doing? >> no one has spent what is the fcc doing, ftc doing -- outcome to, chairman genachowski. what is the ftc doing now to oversee google and a new service that apparently there's some problems with it? if you will very quickly -- >> yes, the ftc entered into a settlement with google with regard to its roll out of its google service, social network service that it provided. the proposed order which has yet to become final contains a few

key elements. one, it bars misrepresentations on the part of google with regard to data practices. it requires google to provide a comprehensive data privacy program, and also to conduct privacy audits. >> okay. and then what is the ftc doing in regard to facebook and the facial recognition technology? do you think that poses a threat to privacy? >> i'm afraid that i can't comment on specific practices or specific companies. what it will take is that the agency is looking closely at social networking arena as evidenced by the google case we just discussed. >> thank you. chairman genachowski. back to who has the jurisdiction here? how do you square this? heidi think that overseeing the issue of privacy fits into the fcc's mission because i see it

more closely aligned with the fcc. just 30 seconds on the. >> congress has assigned the federal communications commission since at least 1984 the responsibility for protecting cpni or pii, various personal information on communications networks. and we have developed expertise around the engineering of those networks, the business practices of those networks. that continues to be important even as we move forward into this new area. and so it's the reason that we collaborate so closely with the federal trade commission. we have a joint task force. where we live together as some of these issues of overlap and we bring different experiences and expertise to the table that i think on a net basis is very beneficial in the area. we have an obligation to make sure that anything we do together for any area of overlap in jurisdiction are communicated clearly and that public and industry has clear guidance

about what the landscape is and what they -- >> i in overtime so thank you very much. mr. strickling, you are off scott free. >> if the gentlelady which is yield for 10 seconds to the commissioner ramirez, i thought i heard ms. blackburn ask about google plus and your answer was not google plus. >> i believe the reference is to google buzz. >> no, ma'am. i said google plus. >> again, i can't comment on nonpublic matters, so my response was in reference to a recent -- >> to google plus. >> to google buzz that relates to networking. >> thank you. >> that years happy to recognize mr. butterfield for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. right now we are grappling with allocated security bill should treat activities regulated under gramm-leach-bliley. we are all weary of duplicative regulation. on the other hand, we don't want

gaps in consumer protection. both cnn and npr have reported that banks which are not within fcc's jurisdiction are selling information that they collect from credit and debit purchases. that is, they are selling their consumers entire purchase histories to retailers. also privacy legislation -- if such legislation is limited to a select group of data collected. for example, if privacy legislation is limited to companies within the ftc's jurisdiction, as are many of the current proposals, the house and the senate, retailers such as amazon would be limited in collecting and selling data about a consumers shopping habit. citibank would be totally free to collect and sell that same information to amazon. do any of you have any concerns about such a scenario?

>> i can address the question, and i will do it in reference to the draft bill that was discussed earlier, the data act, where the agency does have a concern if drafted. breach notification, there's a carpet for entities that we subject to the ftc's jurisdiction so we do have a concern about that gap. >> some have suggested that any data security legislation on privacy legislation we draft should be written very narrowly because there are sector specific laws on the books already. others want it broad enough to assure that all gaps are covered. ftc has experience sharing jurisdiction in other areas. do you support data security or privacy legislation that would overlap, that could overlap with existing sector specific regulation?

>> with regard to data security we do, again, keep in mind the gap that i talked about, that is a concern. we do have limited jurisdiction. we do not have jurisdiction over banks for instance, but we do support the general data security legislation specs all right. to the chairman, mr. chairman, as you may know the internet service providers argue that they should not be subject to the requirements of any data security bill, that this committee might consider. we for two basic arguments from them. one is that isps are just so called dumb pipes and they don't know what information is being passed to and from their customers. the isps have also argued that the ftc regulation would be duplicative. because fcc regulates telecommunications, service providers through rules that include breach notification requirements or cpni.

should those who provide the pipes, and i just heard that word for the first time the other day, should those who provide dump pipes that sometimes carried documents and sometimes carried sensitive documents also be subject to some minimum security requirements for the data that moves along those pipes? >> one way to look at it is from the perspective of the consumer. i think consumers just want to know that their private information that's put out on networks, and they don't know all the different details about what's this, what's that, that there are defective data security policies in place that they can rely on. we want that as a country because not having that will hinder broadband adoption and the economic benefits of broadband. so i think we need to find a way to make sure that consumers have confidence in the cd and security of the internet and the

services that isps provide. >> cpni is the data collected by telecommunication companies and data consumers telephone calls. it includes a time, date, duration and destination number of each call. the type of network a consumer subscribes to in any other information that appears on the consumers telephone bill. that's pretty fast. does the fcc under these rules protect data breaches of content? for example, if i subscribe to the service of one of the additional telecom carriers, and i received a voicemail, which is content stored by that carrier, does that voicemail information have to be secured? >> so there are two issues but i think from the perspective of the fcc rules and obligations, the telephone company has an obligation to provide security. from the perspective of third parties who might seek to hack in and get that information, that is a criminal violation

that would be prosecuted by the appropriate authority. >> what about if i subscribe to voice over ip service? voice over ip can transcribe a subscribers voice no message into the e-mail and text messages, so that voicemail, e-mail and text will exist as content. to the extent, madam chairman, i know my time has expired. i will save it for the next round. thank you. >> i would allow the government to answer the question. >> all right. >> i would say that fcc has applied section 222 to voice over the internet. we are reviewing whether there are gaps in technology evolves and that's something we'll forge working with the committee on. >> thank you. >> thank the gentleman, and the chair now recognizes the chairman emeritus of the full committee, mr. barton for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman.

i think the questions the committee members have been asking point out a fundamental issue that at some point in time we have to deal with, what information is personal and what information is private, and who controls it? we get the same question in almost every different format from every member of the committee. and hopefully in this congress, in conjunction with our agencies, we can put into statute and regulation the answers to that question. my first question is pretty straightforward to the members, the witnesses here before us. congressman mark and i have introduced a bill, h.r. 1895 which is the do not track kids act privacy protection of 2011. your agencies have a position on that bill yet? and if so, what is it? >> i'll start. the administration has not yet taken a position on that or any other do not track legislation at this point in time. i think though it is clear and

will emerge from the work we're doing now that the idea of providing more protection for children and for adolescents is one that we think has got to be incorporate in the fair information principles that we will be proposing. >> and that the federal communications commission the agency hasn't taken a position, speaking for myself, the focus on children and the unique issues that are raised by children in the context of new technology. >> and the ftc also has not taken a position on the legislation, but as i indicated earlier the commission to support the adoption and implementation of a do not track universal system. >> this question is for commission were mayors at the f. t. c. several years ago a company called google used a tech need called street mapping. this street mapping service a

mast quite a bit of data a very private and personal information. google testified before the subcommittee, are laced with the subcommittees subcommittees about it, promised that it was done unaware at the corporate level and are going to make changes. they also in response to some inquiry by the ftc made very significant verbal assurances that they would improve their behavior and do certain things. but apparently that's all they did. they really didn't change their business model, and it appears to me that google has adopted a model of saying one thing in washington and doing another thing in their business practices. we might need to drop the g. from google and just call them oogle because of what it appears they're doing. i'm not saying they're doing it

intentionally. so my question to you, commissioner ramirez, when you have a camping like a google, that doesn't appear to really follow up and doesn't appear to change their business practice, what should a regulatory agency like yours do you insist that they changed business practices? and do you feel that you have the adequate statutory authority to make that happen, or do we need to pass legislation to give you that authority? >> let me just say that i don't want to focus on a particular company, but the agency in -- >> my question is on that particular company. >> what i can say is the agency is very vigilant when it comes to the issues about protecting personal information of consumers. with regard to google i did mention a recent proposed order that he sent to become final with regard to google buzz, in a situation that you identify that investigation was closed and i do believe that highlights the

limits of the ftc's jurisdiction in the following ways. agency has done quite a bit within section five authority but there are limits. if the company is not engaged in representation, the agency would not be able to have the authority to pursue an enforcement action and that was the case in the wi-fi matter that you identify. >> do you think that congress needs to give additional statutory authority to enforce that type of inaction speak with the ftc is not taken a position as whether legislation is needed. but what i will say is that there are limits to the agency section five authority. and in my personal view, there does need to be more work, there needs to be more work in order for consumers to have -- >> under current law, your authority is limited? >> that's right. section five authority will not reach all practices that can cause concern in this area.

>> my time has expired but i would just point out for thoughtful purposes, if this congress are one of these regulatory agencies attempted to either pass a law or passed a statute that required every citizen to worry transponder and keep it -- to wear a transponder and keep it active, anyplace we shopped would be automatically recorded, not just by the federal government that would be available to a private sector for use. our voters and citizens would come unglued. and yet if you go on the internet, without your permission, that is the basic status quo. and i believe we need to take steps to put privacy back into the personal realm and take it out of the consumer marketing opportunity realm, and health on

a bipartisan basis we can begin to do that in this congress on this committee. with that i want to thank my to subcommittee chairman, and women for doing this hearing, and ranking members of those to subcommittees to participate. thank you. >> thank the gentleman and i recognize mr. marcus for five minutes of. >> thank you, madam chairman. i would just be following up on the same line of inquiry that the children of texas and his son jack were engaging in right now. i can see his interest in child in online privacy sitting up there. he is waving to you and thanks for the work that you're going to do. to protect children online. [laughter] >> jack barton over there. so, you heard this concern about the razor button, you know, that can be used to just say that

children are minors. what were they thinking going to that site? what were they thinking putting that picture up? what were they thinking when you're 13, 14? in anticipation out of the senate confirmation hearing where someone has now gone and pulled it all up at the admissions office, it's some kind of checking out what you did at age 12, 13, 14, 15. a bunch of young people go and find out. that's not a good thing. there should be a way in which that information is erased. and it would be the parents of course they want to the race it, and that they have a right to do so. technology makes it possible for them to do so. and again, this is not big brother. this is just big mother and father sang, you know, they were only 12. they were only 13. they were only 14. we want to be able to erase it.

do you think, mr. mayors, that makes sense? that would be a right that parents be able to have that technology available to them and that they can't erase it, not on a discussion at bases but it's their right to see a mandate to the companies that they have to delete it for a minor or a child's because i do believe that's an interesting idea, observing the and we're happy to work with you. >> so you are not sure? >> i would like to think about it. >> chairman genachowski? >> to point. one is the concerns about children are very real, very sick. the second is empowering parents to do what they want to do when it comes to protecting the kid is also extremely important. number three, technology is -- can help solve as. technology can divide the tools. i think this is a direction that makes sense. >> mr. strickling? >> the principle no one can disagree with it but here's the

caution i would urge able to keep in mind which is, for the legislature, for the regulator to be taking technological solutions, i think it's something we need to approach with caution. we need to establish the principles. and that is -- >> the principle be the parents have the right technologically to have this information a raise. and it's up to the companies to figure out what that technology is. would that be okay with you? >> the principle should be, parents should be able to erase it. do you agree? >> there's no way to disagree with that principle. >> thank you. >> that i still would urge some restraint in terms of setting down in regulation something that could inadvertently, lead to a loss of speed as i appreciate that. we would depend upon smart people. we would mandate to you to do it, to give parents the right to do it, and make sure that we

don't have other unintended consequence. you think you do that's because our motto is motto is a set of parental and bring the stakeholders together. >> good. is the same thing to on geolocation that you should have a tracking device on a 12, 13 year-old? the parent should be able to have that shut off? >> yes spent i don't have a minute left. can you say yes? >> sure. >> thank you. chairman genachowski, is not a good idea for 12, 13 to 14 your to have all this tracking information, do you agree with that? >> i was a very quick i think there's a balance here that have to be done right. i've a 17 year old. i want them to have a device speed how about a 12 year old? >> would've the right ages but for emergency purposes, a paramount want to make the decision. >> but parental control. >> but the technology is there to shut it off for all other purposes other than a parent because on same. do you agree with that?

>> i believe parents should have control of the. >> and finally on the marketing, you know, by these companies to children and minors, do you agree there should be a prohibition on targeting minors? we don't let people advertise on children programming, you know, the kind of products we don't think should be there. do you agree as well that we should have prohibitions on the targeting of miners when it comes to these internet and web-based services that are out there? ms. ramirez? >> parents should have control over it and should -- >> technology should make it possible. >> that's right. >> chairman genachowski? >> basically yes. there's been a long history as you know in the television area and i think borrowing from what we've learned is that his work. >> thank you. >> i would agree with the comments already expressed.

>> thank you, madam chair. spent the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you very much, madam chair, and the panel, thank you very much for being here. mr. strickling, if i can start, on page one of your testimony you noted that the department of commerce has been working with the internet policy task force and the white house to conduct a broad assessment of how well our current consumer data privacy policy and framework serves consumers, businesses and other participants in the internet community. can you talk a bit about how the recently announced national strategy in cyberspace fits in with that? >> certainly. that's an effort again a voluntary effort to allow industry to develop ways that people can operate on the internet environment with a

trusted identity that could replace passwords and otherwise improve the security, any individual might have transacting business on the internet. totally voluntary. the goal is to industry develop these tools with government serving as the facilitator, convener. it's very much part our overall to how to do with these existing policy issues. >> just to follow up on that because we were talking the whole discussion is on privacy, and as individuals are to participate in the identity management system, what protection will be in place to ensure the privacy of the information is turned over to their provider? >> keep in mind i will end this will be to work with industry, to have been develop the sort of trusted identity mechanisms. it's not the program that we're going out to the public with, to get people in the public to sign up for the big idea though is to

create the market and what consumers would find to be a preferred approach to operate and transacting business on the internet and the current system of passwords which in many ways is quite insecure for people. >> well, have you in your discussion with the folks out there that might be developing this, have they given you any indication of how it might work, and to protect that? >> this effort is headed up at the department of commerce. so i have not had any of those conversations with industry about how they would go about this, but the folks are the this effort. >> if i could, could ask if they could provide us information what they might have at this time that i think it would be appreciated. and if i could go on, i further certain allegations out there that certain for nations have more onerous privacy laws on the books that we have here in the

no cities. but they seem to apply those laws mainly only to american business. what is the ministration doing to assure the privacy protections are not being used on any american companies from competing in the global market? >> i will take that one. we are involved in a lot of discussions internationally with the goal of trying to reach some inner operability of privacy rules around the world. we think it's critical for american business to be able to operate in other countries, and while this country certain have valid and legitimate interest in protecting the privacy of their citizens, we think it's in everyone's interest to find a regime or set of regimes that are interoperable with each other. i would mention that our emphasis on the creation of these codes of conduct i industry working with other stakeholders may be a way to bridge some of those differences between the privacy protections in our country, compared to

those that might be employed in other countries. the idea that if we can get various as he said the to recognize code of conduct as an appropriate response to the privacy and. is, that nation or set of nations, that gives industry an opportunity to create one operating approach that meets the obligations of many different countries. so very specifically, in europe there in the process of rewriting the european union privacy directive. and we've had a number of conversations with the folks at the e.u. to talk to them about making sure that they have a role for code of conduct as a way to meet these obligations. we see that as a fast way to achieve the interoperability. or businesses need to be able to thrive internationally. >> if i could just go, this is a very important effort, the threat to american businesses,

our economy, if this doesn't succeed is very significant. and the opportunity to make progress internationally on a set of principles that can be complied with across multiple jurisdictions is a window that is closing. just as many countries go ahead and adopt inconsistent regulations, want to make it extremely difficult, expensive, impossible for american companies to comply with. reversing that will be more difficult than working out as the commerce department and others to establish a level playing field internationally from the start of this very important growing industry. >> thank you very much. madam chair, i see my time has expired and i yield back. >> i now recognize the gentlelady from california, ms. matsui for her five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. as i said previously in today's economy, information is everything. to everyone even though we might think our personal information is that important.

we might do things way but it's important to somebody. with ever-changing technology and applications emerging, it's essential that we protect the private and personal information of customers and consumers. we must do in such a way that doesn't stifle innovation. i know this is a delicate balance. but how do we find a delicate balance to ensure that consumers are aware what information is being collected and the scope of it, while not stifling innovation? why don't you start off, trained to? >> yes. -- ms. ramirez. >> solicit input on this comp good questions to ensure that we do undertake a balanced approach. it -- the frame of has been proposed eliminating status report issued last december. is precisely an approach that we believe balances the need for consumer protections here as well as the needs of industry. >> i would add, a process that our various agencies have

undergone and a process that congress has undergone through the hearings on this topic, they've actually led to growing consensus around some core ideas. focusing on consumer choice, transparency, and real data security. obviously, there are a lot of issues in quotation but i think where we are now collectively as compared to where we were a year ago reflects real progress. now the difficult task of converting that into rules were necessary at agencies, or not, because i think the point mr. strickling me before, industry led efforts here have particular benefits, if they move and if they put those measures in place. >> you have anything to add, trained by? >> certainly. i will make it easy for you to pass legislation on the lines of what we recommend. a slime, principles allow industry, working with all stakeholders to develop codes of conduct and give the ftc the enforcement power it needs to enforce a baseline principles.

i think that is exactly the balance we want to have. it gives industry the flexibility to craft specific rules of behavior that meet their needs and allow them to continue to innovate. but at the same time it's based on a set bedrock bill of rights of privacy that assures that the going gets a basic amount of protection. >> thank you. now as you know, omb is implementing a cloud computing initiative to improve government efficiency, while saving taxpayers money. and i do support commissions like this. now, chairman genachowski, do you support clout initiatives and what kind of impact do you think will have on our economy? and how can we assure any potential privacy concerns with cloud are properly met? >> i strongly support these initiatives on the part of both government, large businesses, small businesses, their efficiency and enhancing, they will save money.

there are new areas of two minutes growth for our economy. it's an example of a new technology that has extorting opportunity, that also presents challenges and there's no question that data security and privacy are some of the challenges. i would not tackle that by slowing down cloud computing. i would tackle that by working diligently with industry to make sure that security is fully protected and taking advantage of the extraordinary technological expertise that we have in this country to make sure that happen. >> thank you. as we all know, these polls that we're talking about are drafted in complicated legal language. and more important even as the consumer is able to understand the privacy policy of one company, the policies can't easily be compared for company the company. there's no means for consumers to comparison shop privacy in any meaningful way.

plug-in industry do to improve i see policy and steps in standards so that privacy practices can be compared from company to company? ms. ramirez speakers i first want to say that i agree that privacy policy, the way it develops proposed a significant challenge, is acute in the mobile arena we have a very small screen and sometimes you have to scroll through one hand screened to read a single policy. so one of the key almonds with the ftc has proposed is that the be simplified consumer notice and choice. and that's the essential feature of the framework we are proposing. >> i see my time is running out. can you to comment quickly on this? >> i agree. i think the importance of industry led efforts to ensure compliance with these principles that are think there's broad agreement on choice of transparency, real security is

an important part of what we all need to do. >> thank you. mr. strickling? >> we totally subscribe to transparency and more simplicity. >> thank you. thank you, madam chairman. >> thank you. the chair recognizes mr. scalise for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chairman. i know as we're all struggling with the balance between protecting privacy, while also making sure as people use the internet, one of the great things about the internet is that for the most part for sony things you can do free, where there are services that are provided but at the same time in many cases you are not necessarily paying for some of the services and, of course, the outcomes in that many cases, the things that you're doing on the internet, there is some tracking that goes on and ultimately sell to advertisers and advertising, money that those companies make allows them to provide the service for free. so you've got to wait that balance and make sure that we can protect privacy and then

also allow for the ability for consumers who do want to participate in the transaction, to be able to still have the services offered, if they so choose. i guess that's where we get into the policy side, how best to make sure that framework gives the consumer, the online user the choice. i want to first if you're take on something, there was an article i read called you're not google's customer, you are the product. and it kind of poses an interesting i guess lays out an interesting scenario, what really is, who is the product, who is the customer. and in many cases you're a customer if you walk into a store and you pay for something, you're the customer. and it seems like in some cases on some of these companies, not just google, but all companies that have this kind of business model, are you really the customer if you're really not paying for anything but, in

fact, your actions on their website is what issues for them to go in and sell advertising and with the advertiser to the customer and that you? how does that relationship all come down to how you as regulators treat those various entities? if i could just get each of your takes on that business model and how you really view where is the user of the service in that transaction. >> i will give my first impression. i haven't seen the article so i'm not sure exactly the context -- >> ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record and make that of abel to the witnesses. >> that's great but i think i can answer your question. what is key is if you're collecting information about people, so i think there's nothing to be gained by distinction between a customer at a noncustomer or a product or whatever. the issue is information about you being collected by this particular entity when you go online to their website. and it needs to be made very

transparent and clear language, you know, to you in whatever capacity you are coming to the website. but that information is and how it's going to be used. but i don't think the distinction is important. the question really is, are you collecting information about this individual when they visit your website. >> i would add this, we're in a period now of tremendous technological business model, innovation. and that's a really good thing. it's part of what makes our country great. it's part of what will ultimately make our economy sound and strong. and we wouldn't want to be seen this happen in other countries and not here. now, new technologies, new business models give new rise to new concerns and it's appropriate we're having this discussion, this debate involving industry, involving agencies, involving congress, to identify core principles that should be protected, even as we

encourage world leading business model and technological innovation. .. >> i believe that there can be an intermediate approach that can be used when consumers can select what type of advertising they are willing to receive and what type of information about them can be collected. in that fashion, advertising

would continue. if the consumer doesn't want advertising for health, that can be done. >> all right. thank you. i want to ask chairman genachowski, i'm not sure if you were implies, but seems like you might have been referring to the internet as telecommunications service. i wouldn't consider it a telecommunications service in that sense. was that your intention? >> i'm not sure i used that phrase. i may have referred to as communications network. i think it clearly is. >> but not a telecommunications service. >> classification issues -- >> which i didn't intend to raise. >> appreciate it. thank you for your answers. i yield back. >> thank you, gentleman. i recognize mr. rush for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair, i want to thank you and all of the

other very important people that have put together the hearing. i want to thank all of the witnesses for appearing before today. i know they are quite busy. but glad they would come over and share their opinions and their conclusions. commissioner ramirez stated correctly, i believe that individuals can and do have varying tolerance threshold. these thresholds can turnon several variables, including who has the personal information and what that information which is a personal information reference in. and i introduced a bill in the last congress and reintroduced it in this congress, it's called the best press act. hr611.

which will require entitied to obtain expressed consent from consumers or collection use or disclosure of particularly sensitive information or comprehensive online data collection. among other things, it would require the fcc -- it would give, rather, the fcc the rulemaking authority to further modify or time the definition of what quote sensitive information. given how complex a person's decision making process and all of the dependencies that involved, i'd like to ask each the witnesses today, especially you, commissioning were ramirez. your opinion on whether such a grant of authority is prudent

and would it make for a good public policy? >> again, let me just say the fcc has not taken a formal position on legislation. i will note in the privacy report that was issued in december, the staff does recommend the sensitive information be provided both additional security protections and that consumers be given an opportunity to provide expressed consent for the use of that information. i also do believe if legislation were to be enacted, it would be beneficial to have the agency, to accord the agency apa rulemaking authority to make modifications should that prove necessary with regard to the types of sensitive information that would be protected. >> chairman? >> it is said that is the less queer and more confusing disclosures are about how it's

being use, the stronger in for a opt-in, the more clear, easy to understand transparent disclosures are, the weaker the argument. it's an area where the industry can step up, provide disclosures about how they are using information, what they are collecting that are so clear to make it easy for consumers to choose that there's no need to have an opt-in, opt-out debate. if it's more confusing, we'll continue to hear from consumers. we don't understand this. we need defaults. >> i guess i'd like to take your question up just one level. because it could be raised about any number of things. again, point out our concern about getting too detailed and too regulatory in terms of specific prohibitions and the mechanisms that are used to implement them. what's important we can all

agree that there be meaningful consent. none of us can predict today what technology might be available in two or three years by which meaningful consent can be obtained from a consumers. therefore, we are quite concerned about incorporates into legislative language or in rulemaking by themselves will take quite some time to conduct. you know, very specific approaches. to preserve the flexibility for business to innovate, we think this is the perfect example of where the set the principal and then ask industry working with all stakeholders, civil society and other folks that are interested in this, to devise the rules of behavior that would be engaged in and which can be changed on the regular basis to accommodate. >> thank you. i want to move on to -- commissioner ramirez also stated that some communities communiti- consumers rather maybe more

predisposed than others to be taken advantage of, including consumers who are put on marketing sucker list based on the past behavior. this -- my additional question, what can be deemed to be sensitive information. along that line, how sensitive would you say our other forms of compulsive disorder related about consumers such as drugs, sex, gambling addiction, for example. how sensitive would those particular areas and other areas be to you? >> and again i'll turn to the recommendations that were made in the privacy report that idea certain categories such as health information, financial information, location information. i would classify those as being sensitive. >> commissioner?

>> i would agree with that. >> we have in our legislative proposal on data breach in may, we provided a list of what the administration would believe to be sensitive information. i would refer to that list. >> thank the gentleman. and recognize dr. cassidy for five minutes. >> commissioner ramirez, you helped me last time understand what hippa applies to and what it does not. your opening statement was kind of like a good hemingway story. the first sentence grabbed me. when i buy my advil for my bad need, that hippa protective that i just purchased advil over the counter, or can cvs intergrate that so i start getting advertisements for advil on my sidebar? >> if you go to a retailer, that

would not be protected under hippa. retailers would be able to use that information. >> i blow glucose -- i buy something for osteoarthritis, it's nonprotected, over the counter, they can integrate that with other things known about me since i have a rewards card and that can go into the database. let's tag bill cassidy. >> yes. if one does research online, it's conceivable that certain personal health can be part of the profile. >> i do to the national institute of health. i'm a physician, regarding medical information. i may look up anything that i want to.

i look up hepatitis. now that i don't see things on the sidebar about hepatitis. it is possible to keep that even if i start off. if i go to google and put in hepatitis and come up with wikipedia and pubmed, i go to pubmed, the fact that i went into google, now google knows i'm interested in hepatitis. >> yes. >> what about my credit card company, i'm purchasing tickets to come to washington, d.c. does american express or visa integrate that into my overall profile? >> i want to note that agency doesn't have jurisdiction over banks. so there is -- there are certain safeguards that apply to financial information that might be more strict. there is a difference there. >> got you. the other thing i'm noticing in my inbox now, i will get an e-mail from somebody suggesting that i have requested information from them. and i happen to know that i have

not. it's almost a form of phishing, only ph phishing. is this something that is common now. some bank will say you need to update your records. we see there's been a recent change, not banks, because you don't have banks, that entices me to go to their web site to update my records even though i haven't used that service? >> there are a number a scams that we're aware of that operators may try to get financial information from consumers. >> it maybe the company. >> consumers need to be careful about that, certainly. >> yes, i got you. now the childrens aspect of this, commissioner, i guess it's you. i have a daughter who's nine. she kind of whizzes past. she accepts everything. okay. i'm struck that some of these do

you accept are so long that unless you are obsessive-compulsive attorney, you are never going to read it. is it possible to make me fully aware of this, but i'm not fully aware because it's on line 47 of photograph -- paragraph 42? do you see my point. when we have somebody in opt in and opt out, there's contract language. is there currently a rule that says listen if you are going to opt in, opt out, it has to be understandable and not buried deep within a contract? does that make sense. you are looking at me blankey. >> i'm sorry. i wasn't sure you were speaking to me. we do have concerns about privacy policies. one the recommendations, there's

no belief that companies ought to do that. >> got you. i yield back thank you. >> thank you, dr. kass i. the chair recognized mr. harper for five minutes. >> thank you. commissioner ramirez, i want to follow up on some questions or area that we had done regarding harm to consumers. and does the commission or can the commission provide specific examples of actual harm or are we talking more of hypotheticals? >> the harms that we are concerned about is not speculation. we have heard public reports of activities along the leans of the hypothetical that i used in my opening statement is actually happening. insurance companies, for instance, today, are developing models by which they can assemble information that's available to them through the

segregation of data that we've been discussing, as a means of substituting what formerly would be more complicated under writing analyses. so the potential is clearly there. there are public reports that these things are happening today. >> are you able to provide to us evidence or documentation of those specific arm -- harms? >> we will work with you to provide more information about those harms. >> all right. is there -- as we look at this -- should before we look at additional regular -- regulations or we look at information, should the federal government be required to show what significant consumer harm exists to justify the type of divisional cost that we could be talking about when it comes to market legislation or privacy or do not track legislation that might impose upon businesses? >> i believe that if congress decides to move forward with legislation, certainly one has to take into account the

implications for all relevant stakeholders, yes. >> have you done any analysis of that potential cost? >> what -- >> the cost to businesses for that. >> again, we're -- we have solicited comments and have received over 450 comments from industry, consumers, and other stakeholders. we do have a brew row of economics that's involved in the review, and we'll be putting out recommendations later this year. >> okay. do you have a time frame? later this year -- >> later this year. >> when you think -- >> i can't give you that information. >> okay. >> appreciate it. >> what information internet sites collect about users and how much do we know about the sharing of that information? i know you covered it some in the hearing. can you enlighten us? >> i'm afraid i can't quantify the scope. what i can tell you is there is clearly a need for the principals that we are advocates. there's clearly a need for

greater transparency, greater need for companies to take into account privacy protections when they provide services and protects to consumers and a greater need for simplified choice. >> you know, some critics have expressed concern that self-regulatory schemes could constitute a barrier to entry, perhaps erected by more powerful market against smaller, newer companies. how do we guard against such a result as that? >> i do think it's a concern. one has to take into consideration the gang on small and medium businesses. it's an issue that the agency is looking at closely. we do intend to address the issue in the final report. >> what would be the best alternative to self-regulation? what -- is that going to work? >> well, that's an issue that i think you will have to ultimately decide on as to whether or not legislation is needed. but if there is -- if one is to rely on self-regulation, i will see it's very important there be

an enforcement element and accountability. i think the fcc ought to play a role in enforcement. >> thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. the chair recognized mr. olson for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman. i would like to welcome the witnesses and thank you for coming and giving you your expertise and time. my first is for you commissioner ramirez and follow up on what mr. harper was pursuing. in december of 2010, they issued a privacy report to open up the discussion, and in the report, the concept of do not track. this concept has been compared by the ftc and others to the national do not call registry, already managed by the commission. but in reality, they are very different. do not call, as you know, was created because people were being bothered by unsoliciting telephone calls, particularly during the dinner hours.

it's not invasive the way telephone calls are. they can ignore the ad. in my experience, none of my friends have slammed their computer on the floor because of the advertising, but i've seen many slam their phones on the floor. there are many benefited to targeting added, giving consumers information about products and services they might be interested in, and it has great value to consumers. it the advertising revenue funds, the free online content the service that consumers enjoy. but i ask you, do you concur that do not track is analogous to do not call? >> i agree there's difference opinion do not track would not call for the creation of any kind of national registry, or something that has to be implemented necessarily by government. what the agency has advocated is

we've put out various deposition of various elements that we feel would be important. but again the key feature of it would be that it's a universal mechanism to allow consumers that do have a concern about online collection and use of information to have greater choice and control over how their data is being used. >> is it not track feasible now, ma'am? >> yes, it is. we have a distinguished team of technologist and a number of companies do agree there's consensus that is a feasible. >> take mt. -- take in my colleague's from mississippi's principal on the tracking. >> no, we have not. we have identified the elements that we think are important. we are not advocates a particular mechanickism. > are you manning on doing that? >> at the end of the year.

>> and that will comment on the economic details? >> i can't answer that. we understand the importance of impact on business and carefully crafted standards can be continued that will both help restore confidence in the online marketplace, and i think businesses themselves recognize that consumer trust is vital. >> yes, ma'am. i've heard from some that legislation is needed to create an online privacy framework that's technological neutral, based on industry self-regulation and enforced exclusively by the ftc. with regard to technological neutrality, is it true today the fcc and ftc would have jurisdiction over the download of a video on demand from a cable company, but only the fcc would have jurisdiction from the download from the provider like netflix? anybody can chime in. you are the expert. >> i think that's probably

correct description of the current framework. >> can we come up with a common system where there's one regulator? >> i'm not sure that's the answer that the fcc and the ftc have worked well together over more than 20 years in areas of complimentary jurisdiction to make sure the expertise that are different that each agency brings to the table informs solutions that get the balance right between taking account of impact on our economy and protecting basis values like our privacy. >> again with respect to industry self-regulation, this is mainly for you, can you please provide the committee where the ftc using con tex to protect consumers and what role they believe self-regulation should have in protecting customer's online privacy? >> yes, we believe that

self-regulation can play a role. of ftc cannot take all of the control. we think self-regulation is possible, and with a countability mechanism. we believe the ftc can provide that. >> thank you. i yield back to balance my time. >> thank you, mr. olson, chair recognized mr. kinzinger for five minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> excuse me. can you check your microphone? would you? thank you. >> navy helping the air force. >> that's great. about time. [laughter]

>> well, thank you. thank you for coming out. i appreciate it. the explosive expansion that we've seen in online marketing and tracking over the past few years have been unprecedented. from 2010 to 2014, the industry is projected to grow from $2.6 million to $20. i understand the advertising and the effect it's having on the economic growth and job creation. any privacy legislation that this committee considers must fully content with the implications of what slower growth will have on both the economy and services provided to the consumer. it's estimated that privacy legislation could cost the industry as much as $623 million in growth if legislation imposing limits on online tracking. i'm also keenly aware that the decisions that we make in the committee will profoundly impact the question of whether or not

privacy is still a right in the country. the accelerateed accumulation of data is troubling for many consumers. i believe one action the committee should take is to determine what type of information is aggregated. do a few companies control the information and the shoe size? as a consumers, am i allowed to know what information is stored about me? these are all information that we need to consider when drafting privacy legislation. while some of these may have been asked in a different way, i will ask the first question that commissioner ramirez, what impact do you think do not track legislation will have specifically on free internet service itself? >> i think it all depends on how do you track is implemented. that's the key question. with the agency, the fcc has done is to outline what it considered to be the core elements that any such mechanism ought to have in order to assure

basic protections for consumers and allow them to have a choice. the emphasis here is on choice. i personally don't believe -- i believe a mechanism can be constructed that i would can be an intermediate option that would allow consumers to have a choice about what type of advertising. such a system would benefit consumers and industry. >> okay. to all three of you. do you believe consumers have a right to know information what information is obtained on them both in the online and in the offline space? how do we determine what information is private and what's not? again, this may have been addressed. i'm curious. do consumers have the right to know. how do we determine what should be private and what shouldn't? just generally. yes. >> go ahead. >> yes, we think that one of the fair information practices should be -- should incorporate this notion of the consumers knows what's being collected about them and how it's going to be used.

as a broader point though, i would just say that the specific regulation about how that be done is not something that we propose that either congress or a regulatory agency do. again, we see the benefits and this goes to your question about the cost that legislation and regulation impose on businesses. we think it's vitally important that we give industry the opportunity to take the principals and create the volunteer codes of conduct that they will commit to live by without sacrificing innovation, without costing them the dollars that perhaps they less well crafted regulation might impose on them. >> okay. sure. >> i agree. >> are we all in agreement. great. that's easy. those are easy questions. no, i'm kidding. do we know the amount of data companies are collecting withing how it's being collected, bought, and sold? that's basic too. >> i'm sorry.

>> do we know the amount of data that they are collecting on consumers and how it's bought and sold? >> i can't quantify. we know that information is being compiled and significant concerns. again the hypothetical i that i used in my opening statement, highlights how the information can be used. this is not speculation. that is happening today. >> okay. well, i appreciate everybody's patient and everybody coming in and spending -- >> we're going to leave this recorded program now and take you live over to white house. president obama is expected to hold a news conference this morning. most of the questions likely to focus on the debt and deficit negotiations that have been under way. this is the second news conference of the week for president obama. talks ended yesterday with no planned talks with congressional leaders today. again, waiting for president obama live here at the white house on c-span2.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> hello, everybody. as you know yesterday we had another meeting with the congressional leaders. we're not having one today. i thought it would be useful to

give you guys an update on where we are. all of the congressional leaders have reiterated the desire to make sure that the united states does not default on our obligations, and that the full faith and credit of the united states is preserved. that is a good thing. i think we should not even be this close to deadline on this issue. this should have been taken care of earlier. but it is encouraging that everybody believes that is something that has to be addressed. for the general public, i've said it before, i want to reiterate, this is not some abstract issue. these are obligations that the united states has taken on in the past. the congress that has run up the credit card, we now have an obligation to pay our bills. if we do not, it would have a whole set of adverse consequences. we could end up with a

situation, for example, where interest rates rise for everybody all throughout the country. effectively, a tax increase on everybody. because suddenly whether you are using your credit card, trying to get a loan for a car or student loan, businesses that are trying to make payroll, all of them could end up being impacted as a consequence of default. now what is important is that even as we raise the debt ceiling, we also solve the problem of under lying debt and deficits. i'm glad that the congressional leaders don't want to default. i think the american people expect more than that. they expect that they actually try to solve the problem and get the fiscal house in order. so during the course of these discussions with congressional leaders, what i've tried to emphasize is we have a unique opportunity to do something big.

we have a chance to stabilize america's finances for a decade or 15 years or 20 years, if we are willing to seize the moment. now what that would require would be some shared sacrifice. and a balanced approach that says we're going to make significant cuts in domestic spending. and i have already said i'm willing to take down domestic spending to the lowest percentage of our overall economy since dwight eisenhower. it also requires cuts in defense spending, and i've said that in addition to the $400 billion that we've already cut from defense spending, we're willing too look for hundreds of billions more. it would require us taking on health care spending, that includes looking at medicare and finding ways that we can stabilize the system so that it is available not just for that generation, but for future generations. and it would require revenues. it would require even as we are

asking the person who needs a student loan or the senior citizen or, you know, people -- veterans who are trying to get by on a disability check, even as we're trying to make sure that all of those programs are affordable, we are also saying to folks like myself that can afford it that we are able and willing to do a little bit more. that millionaires and billionaires can afford to do a little bit more. that we can close corporate loopholes, so that oil companies aren't getting unnecessary tax breaks. or that corporate jet owners aren't getting unnecessary tax breaks. if we take that approach, then i am confident that we can not only impress the financial markets, but more importantly, we can actually impress the

american people that this town can get somebody done once in a while. let me acknowledge what everybody understands. it's hard to do a big package. my republicans friends have said they are not willing to do revenues, and they have repeated that on several occasions. my hope though is that they are listening not just to lobbyist or special interest here in washington, but they are also listening to the american people. turns out poll after poll, many done by your organizations show that it's not just democrats that think we need to take a balanced approach. it's republicanned as well. the clear majority of republican voters think that any deficit reduction package should have a balanced approach and should include some revenues. that's not just democrats. that's the majority of republicans. you have a whole slew of republican officials from

previous administrations, you've got a bipartisan commission that has said that we need revenues. so this is not just a democratic understanding. that is an understanding that i think the american people hold that we should not be asking sacrifices from middle class folks who are working hard every day from the most vulnerable in our society. we should not be asking them to make sacrifice ifs we aren't asking the most fortunate in our society to make sacrifices as well. i am still pushing for us to achieve a big deal. but what i also said to the group is if we can't do the biggest deal possible, then let's still be ambitious. let's still try to at least get a down payment on deficit reduction. and that we can actually accomplish without huge changes in revenue or significant changes in entitlements, but we

could still send a signal that we are serious about this problem. the fallback position, the third option, and i think the least attractive option is one in which we raise the debt ceiling but we don't make any progress in deficit and debt. because if we take that a -- approach, this issue is going to continue to plague us for months and years to come. i think it's important for the american people that everybody in this town set politics aside. everybody in the town sets the individual interest aside, and we try to do some tough stuff. i've -- you know, i've already taken some heat from my party for being willing to compromise. my expectation and hope is that everybody in the coming days is going to be willing to compromise. last point i'll make, i'll take questions. we are obviously running out of

time. what i've said to the members of congress is that you need over the next 24 to 36 hours to give me some sense of what your plan is to get the debt ceiling raised through whatever mechanisms they can think about and show me a plan in terms of what you are doing for deficit and debt reduction. if they show me a serious plan, i'm ready to move. even if it requires tough decisions on my part. i'm hopeful over the next couple of days we'll see the log jam broken. because the american people, i think, understandably, want to see washington do it's job. all right. with that, let me see who's on the list. we're going to start with jake. >> thank you, mr. president. you've said that producing the deficit will required shared sacrifice. we know we have an idea of tacks that you would like to see raised on corporations and on americans in the top two tax

brackets. but we don't yet know what you are specifically willing to do when it comes to entitlement spending of in the interest of transparency, leadership, and also showing the american people that you have been negotiating in good faith, can you tell us one structural reform that you are willing to make to one the entitlement programs that would have a major impact? willing to raise the retirement age? means test social security or medicare? >> we've said that we are willing to look at all of those approaches. i've laid out some criteria in terms of what would be acceptable. so, for example, i've said very clearly that we should make sure that current beneficiaries, as much as possible, are not affected. but we should look at what can we do in the out years so that over time some of these programs are more sustainable? i've said that means testing on

medicare, meaning people like myself if, you know, i'm going to be turning 50 in a week, so i'm starting to think a little bit more about medicare eligibility. [laughter] yeah, i'm going to get my aarp card soon. and the discounts. but, you know, you can envision a situation where somebody in my position, me having to pay a little bit more on premiums or co-pays or things like that would be appropriate. that could make a difference. so we've been very clear about where we are willing to go. what we are not willing to do is restructure the programs that the ways that we've seen coming out of the house over the last several months. where we would voucherrize the program and you potentially have

senior citizens paying $6,000 more. i view social security and medicare as the most important social safety nets that we have. i think it is important for them to remain as social insurance programs that give people some certainly and reliability in their golden years. but it turns out that making some modest modifications in those entitlements can save you trillions of dollars. and it's not necessary to completely revamp the program. what is necessary is to say how do we make some modifications, including, by the way, on the provider side. i think it's important for us to keep in mind that, you know, drug companies, for example, are still doing very well through the medicare program. and although we have made drugs more available at a cheaper price to seniors who earn

medicare through the affordable care act, there's more work to potentially be done there. if you look at a balanced package, even within the entitlement programs, it turns out that you can save trillions of dollars while maintaining the corps integrity of the program. >> retirement age? >> you know, i'm not going to get into specifics. as i've said, jake, everything that you mentioned are things that we have discussed. what i'm not going to do is to ask for even -- well, let me put it this way, if you are a senior citizen, and a modification potentially cost you $100 or $200 a year more, or even if it's not affecting current beneficiaries, somebody who is 40 today, 20 years from now is going to end up having to pay a little bit more. the least i can do is to say that people who are making $1

million or more have to do something as well. and that's the kind of trade off, that's the kind of balanced approach and shared sacrifice that i think most americans agree needs to happen. >> thank you. >> ted? >> yes, thank you, mr. president. i thought i heard you kind of open up the door to the middle middle-of-the-road possibility. show me a serious plan and i'm prepared to move. just two minutes before you came, house republicans said they would be voted on the $2.4 billion budget. is it on a arrival, or do you have the next 24 to 36 hours to look at it? >> i haven't looked at it yet. you'll see the house vote on a couple of things just to make political statements. but if you are trying to get to $2.4 trillion without any

revenue, then you are effectively gutting a whole bunch of the discretionary domestic spending that is going to be too burdensome and not going to be something that i would support. you know, just to be very specific. we've identified over $1 trillion in discretionary cuts both in defense and domestic spending. that's hard to do. and that requires essentially that you freeze spending and when i say freeze, that means you are not getting inflation so that these are programmatic cuts that over the course of ten years you'd be looking at potentially a 10% cut in domestic spending. now if you then double that number, you are -- you are then at that point really taking a big bite out of programs that are really important to ordinary folks. i mean you are talking then

about students accumulating thousands of dollars more in student loan debt every year. you are talking about, you know, federal workers and veterans and others potentially having to pay more in terms of their health care. so, you know, i have not seen a credible plan having gone through the numbers that would allow you to get to $2.4 trillion without really hurting ordinary folks. and the notion that we would be doing that and not asking anything from the wealthiest among us or from closing corporate loopholes, that doesn't seem like a serious plan to me. the notion that, for example, oil company tax breaks. where the oil executives themselves say that they don't need them to have an incentive to go out and drill oil and make

hundreds of billions of dollars. if we haven't seen the other side even budge on that, you know, then i think most democrats would say that's not a serious plan. one last point on the balanced budget amendment. i don't know what version they are going to be presenting. but some of the balanced budget amendments that have been floating up there, this cap or cut, cap, and balance, for example. when you look at the numbers, what you are looking at is cuts of half a trillion below the ryan budget in any given year. it would require cutting social security or medicare substantially. and, you know, i think it's important for everybody to understand that all of us believe that we need to get to a point where eventually we can balance the budget. we don't need a constitutional

amendment to do that. what we need to do is to do our jobs and do it the same way a family would do it. if a family gets over extended and the credit card is too high, they don't just stop paying their bills. what they do is they say how do we start cutting our monthly cost. we keep on making payments but start cutting out the things that aren't necessary. and we do it in a way that maintains the credit rating, we do it in a way that's responsible. we don't stop sending our kids to college, we don't stop fixing the boiler or the roof that's leaking. we do things in a sensible and responsible way. we can do the same thing when it comes to the federal budget. >> within the $2 trillion ban, which i think referred to the second option, would that need to have some sort of stimlative measures either payroll or extension of insurance? >> i think both would be good for the economy.

payroll tax cut is something that has put $1,000 in the pocket of the typical american family over the last six, seven months and has helped offset some of the rising costs in gasoline and food. and i think that american consumers and american businesses would benefit from a continuation of that tax cut next year. unemployment insurance, obviously, unemployment is still too high. and, you know, there are a lot of folks out there who are doing everything they can to find a job. but the market is still tight out there. for us to make sure they are able to stay in their homes potentially, or they are able to still support their families i think is very important. and contributes to the overall economy. so i think there are ways that you can essentially take a little over $1 trillion in serious discretionary cuts, meaningful discretionary cuts, and then start building on top

of that some cuts in nonhealth care mandatory payments, you know, ethanol programs or you know how we calculate various subsidies to various industries. that could be layered on and still do something like a tax cut for the ordinary families that would end up benefiting the economy has a hole. this is not preferable. i think this like a layer cake. you can do the bare minimum. then you can make the progressively harder decisions to solve the problem more and more. we're in a position now where if we are serious about this and everybody is willing to compromise. we can as i said before, fix this thing probably for a decade or more. that's something that i think would be good for overall

business climate and would encourage the american people that washington is willing to take care of the business. >> good for the business, but not required for your significant. is that what i heard? >> i'm sorry. i lost you on that one. >> you are saying the measures would be good for the client and economy but do they have to be economied for you to sign $2.4 trillion? >> i've got to look at the overall package, hans, i don't know what the speaker or mr. mcconnell are willing to do at this point. okay? >> mr. president, this process got kind of ugly in the last week. and appeared from the outside that things even got a little futile at the meetings. any regrets on your role in how this went? any regrets that you never took bold sector which was $4 trillion over ten years and spent the last six months selling that, the balanced package to the american people? >> first of all, i think this notion that things got ugly is just not true.

we've been meeting every single day. and we have had very constructive conversations. you know, the american people are not interested in the reality tv aspects of what said what and did somebody's feelings get hurt. they are interested in solving the budget problem and the deficit and the debt. that maybe good for chatter in in town. it's not something that folks out in the country are obsessing about. i think with respect to bowles-simpson, it was important for us -- bowles-simpson wouldn't have happened if i hadn't set up the structure. that is bipartisan legislation that some of the republican supporters decided to vote against when i said i supported it. that seems to be a pattern that i'm still puzzled by. so we set it up, they issued a report, and what i said was this provides us an important

framework to begin discussions. but there were aspects of bowles-simpson that i said from very early on, you know, we're not the approach that i would take. i'll give you an example. on defense spending. a huge amount of the savings obvious the discretionary side came out of defense. i think we need to cut defense. as commander in chief, i've got to make sure that we are cutting it in a way that recognized that we are still in the middle of a war. we're winding down another war. and we've got a whole bunch of veterans that we've got to care for as they come home. and so what we've said is a lot of the components of bowles-simpson we are willing to embrace, for example, the domestic spending cuts that they recommend, we've basically taken. others like on defense, we have taken some but not all of the

recommendations. because it's important for it to be consistent with the defense needs and security needs. the bottom line is this is not an issue of salesmanship to the american people. the american people are sold. the american people are sold. i just want to repeat this. >> you mean it would have been different? you have republicans. did republicans senator trying to -- >> chuck. you had 80 percent of the american people who support a balanced approach. 80% of the american people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. so the notion that somehow the american people aren't sold not the problem. the problem is members of congress are dug in ideological into various positions because they boxed themselves in with previous statements. and, you know, this is not a matter of the american people knows what the right thing to do is. this is a matter of congress doing the right thing and

reflecting the will of the american people. and if we do that, we will have solved this problem. laurie montgomery. >> thank you, mr. president. i wanted to ask you the train that seems to be rolling down the track on the hill. specifically, leader mcconnell has laid out an elaborate plan to raise the debt limit. he said last night, looks like they are going to pair that with a new committee that would be tasked coming up with the big solution that you talk about by the end of the year. you are counting on that. meanwhile in the house, they are saying we could be flexible on some of our demands if we could get a balanced budget. vice president biden voted for a bba in 1997. any way that could be part of the solution, or any version of a bba that would you support? >> bba meaned a balanced budget amendment. i think i already addressed this question earlier.

we don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs. the constitution already tells us to do our jobs. and to make sure that the government is living within it's means and making responsible choices. and so this notion that we're going to go through a multiyear process instead of seizing the moment now and taking care of our problems is a typical washington response. we don't need more studies. we don't need a balanced budget amendment. we simply need to make these tough choices and be willing to take on our bases. everybody knows it. i mean we could have a discussion right here about what the numbers look like. we know what's necessary. here the good news. turns out we don't have to do anything radical to solve the problem. contrary to what some folks say, we are not greece.

we are not portugal. it turns out that our problem is we've cut taxes without paying for them over the last decade, we have ended up instituted new programs like a prescription drug program for seniors that was not paid for. we fought two wars, we didn't pay for them. you know, we had a bad recession that required a recovery act and stimulus spending and helping states and all of that accumulated and there's interest on top of that. to unwind that, what's required that we roll back the tax cuts on the wealthiest individuals that we green up the tax code so we are not given out a bunch of tax breaks to companies that are not needing jobs. we cut program that is we don't

need. we invest in those thing that is are going to help us grow. and every commission that's been out there has said the same thing. and basically taken the same approach within the margin of error. my general view is if the american people looked at this, they'd say some of the decisions were tough. they don't require us to cut medicare or social security. they don't require us to stop helping young people go to college. they don't require us to stop helping families who have a disabled child. they don't require us to violate our obligations to our veterans. and the they don't require quote unquote job killing tax cuts. they require us to make some modest adjustments to get our house in order. we should do it now.

with respect to senator mcconnell's plan, as i've said, i think it is a -- it is constructive to say that if washington operations as usual and can't get anything done to avert armageddon. i'm glad that people are serious about the consequences of default. but we have two problems here. one is raising the debt ceiling. this is a problem that was manufactured here in washington. every single one the leaders over there have voted for raising the debt ceiling in the past. it has typically been a difficult but routine process. and we do have a genuine under lying problem that our debt and deficits are too big. so senator mcconnell's

approach solves the first problem. it doesn't solve the second problem. i'd like to solve that second problem. >> are you looking at this option as a more likely outcome at this point in could you hair with us why you have only hope that the talks that, going on might actually reduce on outcome? >> i always have hope. don't you remember my campaign? [laughter] >> even after being here for two and a half years, i continue to have hope. you know why i have hope? it's because of the american people. you know, when i talk to them and i meet with them, as frustrated as they are about this town, they still reflect good common sense. and all we have to do is align with that common sense on this problem, it can get solved. i'm assuming that at some point, members of congress are going to listen. i just want to repeat, every

republican -- not -- i won't say every. a number of republican former elected officials, they are not in office now, would say a balanced approach that includes some revenue is the right thing to do. the majority of republican voters say that approach is the right thing to do. the proposal that i was discussing with speaker boehner fell squarely in line with what most republican voters think we should do. so the question is at what point do folks over there start listening to the people that put them in office? now is a good time. sam young. >> good morning, mr. president. i'd like to go back to something that doug asked the first question about the tone of the debate. i remember the campaign. while it hasn't been ugly, it's not what you had in mind, when you said you wanted to change

the tone in washington. when you have senator mcconnell taking the comments to use the debate through the prism of 2012. can you get anything done in congress in the next year and a half? >> let me say this, and i'm not trying to poke at you guys. i generally don't watch what is said about me on cable. i generally don't read what's said about me even in "the hill" and so, you know, part of this job is having a thick skin and understanding a lot of this stuff is not personal. you know, that's not going to be an impediment to, you know, whatever senator mcconnell says about me on the floor of the senate is not going to be impediment to us getting a deal then. the question is going to be whether at any given moment we're willing to set politics aside, at least briefly, in

order to get something done. i don't expect politicians not to think about politics. but every so often there are issue that is are urgent that have to be attended to and require us to do things we don't like to do. running contrary to our base. that gets some constituency that help elect us agitated. because they are looking at it from a narrow prism. we are supposed to be looking at it from the perspective of what's good for the country? and if we are able to remind ourselves of that, then there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to get things done. look, we've been obsessing over the last couple of weeks about raising the debt ceiling and reducing the debt and deficit. i tell you what the american people are obsessing about right now is that unemployment is still way too high. and too many folks homes are

still under water. and prices of things that they need not just that they want are going up. a lot faster than their paychecks are if they have a job. and so even after we solve this problem, we still have a lot of work to do. hans was mentioning, we should renew the payroll tax for another year. we should make unemployment insurance is there for another year. we should -- but you were making the point about whether or not, you know, that issue could be wrapped into this deal. my of point is that those are a whole nother set of issues that we need to be talking about and working on. i've got an infrastructure bank bill that would start putting construction workers back to work rebuilding the roads and bridges. we should be cooperated on that. most the things i've proposed to help spur on additional job

growth growth are traditionally bipartisan. i've got free trade deals sitting just ready to go. and these are all trade deals that the republicans told me were there top priorities. they said this would be one the best job creators that we could have. yet it's still being held up because some folks don't want to provide trade adjustment assistance to people who maybe displaced as a consequence of trade. surely we can come up with a compromise to solve those problems. there will be huge differences between now and november 2012 between the parties. whoever the republican nominee is, we're going to have a serious debate about what we believe is the right way to guide america forward and to win the future. and i'm can confident that i will win that debate. because i think that we've got

the better approach. in the meantime, surely we can every once in a while sit down and actually do something that helps american people right here and right now. >> in the meantime i'm curious. raising the debt ceiling is fairly routine. it's brought us to the point of economic armageddon. if you can get past this one, how can you get congress to agree on the big issues you talked about? >> well, i'm going to keep on working. i'm going to keep on trying. and what i'm going to do is to hope that in part this debate has focused the american people's attention a little bit more. and will subject congress to scrutiny, and i think increasingly the american people are going to say to themselves ifs a party or politician is constantly taking the position my way or the highway,

constantly being locked into, you know, ideologically rigid positions, that, you know, we're going to remember at the polls. it's kind of accumulative. the american people aren't paying attention to the details of every aspect of the negotiations. but i think what the american people are paying attention to is who seems to be trying to get something done. and who seems to be just posturing and scoring political points? i think it's going to be in the interest of everybody who wants to continue to serve in this town to make sure that they are on the right side of that impression. that's, by the way, what i said in the meeting two days ago. i was very blunt. i said the american people do not want to see a bunch of posturing. they don't want to hear a bunch of sound bites. what they want is for us to

solve problems. we all have to remember that. that's why we were sent here. last question. scott? >> thank you, mr. president. i wonder if you've seen any sign of the daily meeting that republicans are being more aligned with the american majority, or if we are in the same place today as we were on monday. >> it's probably better for you to ask them how they are thinking. i do think that, and i've said this before, speaker boehner in good faith was trying to see if it was possible to get a big deal done. he had some problems in his caucus. my hope is that after some reflection, after we talk through all of the numbers this year and we looked at all of the options, that there maybe some movement, some possibility, some interest to still get something more than the bare minimum done.

we are running out of time. that's the main concern at this point. we have enough time to do a big deal. i have reames of paper, printouts, spread sheets on my desk. so we know how we can create a package that solves the deficits and debts for a significant period of time. but in order to do that, we have to get started now. that's why i'm expecting some answers from all of the congressional leaders, sometime in the next couple of days. and i have to say you know, this is tough on the democratic side too. some of the things i've talked about and said i would be willing to see happen. there are some democrats that think that's absolutely unacceptable. so that's where i'd had the selling job, chuck, is trying to sell some of our party if you are a progressive, you should be

concerned about debt and deficit, just as much as if you were a conservative. and the reason is because if the only thing we're talking about over the next year, two years, five years is debt and deficit, then it's very hard to start talking about how do we make investments in community colleges so that our kids are trained? how do we actually rebuild $2 trillion worth of crumbling infrastructure. you know, if you care about making investments in our kids and making investments in our infrastructure and basic research, then you should want our fiscal out in order so that every time we propodus a new initiative, somebody doesn't just throw up their hands and say more big spending. more government. it would be very helpful for us to be able to say to the american people our fiscal house is in order.

now the question is what should we be doing to win the future and what aspects of what government is doing are a waste and we should eliminate. and that's the kind of debate that i'd like to have. all right. thank you, guys. >> president obama beginning and ending this workweek with the news conference on the debt and deficit negotiations. we are opening up the phone lines to get your thoughts about where things stand. president said we are running out of time. where do your thoughts stand on the august 2nd deadline looming. democratic 202-585-3885, republican 202-585-3886, and

independents 202-585-3887. please mute your television and radio when you call in. we'll take a few minutes and hear from house members, house republicans and house democrats as well. they held the morning caucus. we heard from the leaders of both parties after the meeting, those newspapers, -- news conferences and news briefings coming up. here jen, republican caller. go ahead. jen in mesa, arizona. we'll go to maryville, tennessee on the up -- independent line. andrew, hi. >> caller: good morning. well spoken by the president. it's time the american people demanded that the officials to drop the party names and work with the president to heal our country. >> host: next up, council bluffs, melvin, council bluffs in iowa. no? shaar lean in florida.

go ahead. >> caller: yes. i'd like to ask the question, president obama has had three and a half years now to correct the situation and never -- and have all of his ducks in orders. i want that the republicans that they hold the line with him and do not give into his as he put it is big deals. we all know when he says big deals, that means he wants what he wants. i think he's wrong. i think the american people -- he keeps saying the american people are for him. i disagree 100%. we have to stop the spending. it's got to stop. and no more taxes. and i just hope they hold strong to their word and follow through on their words. >> host: your comment is echoed by a tweet.

>> host: reminder you can read the tweets the twitter.com. members of congress who tweet and posttheir comments as well. gerald in los angeles. go ahead, los angeles. >> caller: hi, good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. as a multimillionaire living in los angeles, i don't understand that the rhetoric comes from a lot of our -- my fellow american st. citizens. i truly do not believe we can balance our budget and get out of this deficit situation with just spending cuts. that is just ludicrous. i mean i make tens of millions of dollars every year and i believe that there are so many loopholes in our tax code that

could be plugged up. i'm willing to pay for taxes. it's just ridiculous. i am willing to help out my fellow americans who are suffering through the worst time since the great depression. these people that think we just want to cut, cut, cut, cut off of the backs on americans who are already suffering is just un-american. and if they think that this can happen just by cutting medicare and student loans and all of these other programs that are actually helping invest in our country, it's just simply very, very self-centered. > host: you mention you make tens of millions of dollars a year, do you take advantage of the tax law school -- tax loopholes? >> caller: yes.

corporate jets. the reason that i say this is because there is no reason that i should be able to take advantage of some of the things i do. i pay -- i hate to say it, just like warren buffet, i pay the same as some of my assistants. >> host: thanks for weighs in. ed in pennsylvania. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: i don't think if the tea bagger or wing nuts think you can't pay the bill without making a higher payment, i think thought ought to be drug tested. they are smoking something. i think at 68, the first year i did my taxes, we had a 10% surtax on the end. you pay 10% to pay for the war. you know, we put all of this stuff on a credit card. and sooner or later, the bill comes due. we got to pay more and pay more. that's it. grover norquist ain't running

the country. that's it. >> host: ed, go ahead. >> caller: i think the democrats don't look at the debt clock and see that it's spinning at 100 miles per hour. it's no way in heck that the corporate tax on jets is going to pay more than what obama spent since january. it's not going to do nothing. by the way, there's nothing in the constitution that says that half of the people in the united states have to support the other half of the people that live here. they need to get off of their butts and get to work. >> host: you hear that guy in los angeles? >> caller: that guy in los angeles, you should have asked him what rate are you paying? he couldn't answer. he doesn't make no millions of dollars. i'm paying 34%. i'd like to see what he's paying. >> host: let's hear from devon in new york. democratic caller, go ahead. >> caller: first of all, i think it's all ridiculous. i think people are so fooled in america. the republicans passed -- first

of all, we got to understand something. they put us in this mess under the bush administration. we had a surplus here in america and that -- the bush administration did away with that and put us in the worse debt and this president inherited the worse debt in american history. >> host: this debt problem more a problem from the bush administration? >> caller: it's carried over from the bush administration. and the republican party has the nerve to turn around and act as if now we messed you up, now let's come back and save you. and then they use the tea party movement. camouflages themselves to get back in the spotlight. everybody that obama has done since the beginning of the administration to try to help out the american public, to try to help out the united states and help us get back on even keel, they've tried to under mine from the beginning. >> host: kevin, you are breaking up on us a little bit.

we'll let you do go. five more minutes of your call reacting to president obama. what we're going to show you in a just a bit is house republicans from this morning after their meeting and house democratic leaders as well. that's not minutes ahead. let's hear from roger in maryland. roger on the independent line. hi there. excuse me. in missouri. hi. >> caller: i just wonder what about all of this money that we're sending to pakistan? and afghanistan? why send all of that money over there? get our troops out of all of these other countries that we need them in. germany and philippines and all of the other places anymore. >> host: here's leslie -- excuse me, tammy in leslie, kentucky. >> caller: yes, they need to bring our troops home and stop spending the millions of billions. they need to help out the people

on social security. it's hard to make it especially when you have a family. >> host: florida, linda on the independent line. where do things stand with the debt and deficit negotiations? >> caller: i think personally it's all bull crap. you've got people that is -- has been on the social security because they are either disabled or whatever. bring our troops home. we don't need to support pakistan. look what they did to us, we don't need to support iran. bring us home. get us out of that situation. we have people out here that fought for the country. now they are going to suffer because he wants to cut back the social security, medicare, and medicaid? that's nuts. i think just bring our people home. start saving what we need here, start sending up the missiles and the shuttles and stuff. right there you'll save trillions. >> host: samantha in california on the democrats line. samantha, go ahead.

>> caller: hi, i don't think this is an issue of obama. i think that is an more an issue in our country of allowing the republicans to have bullying tactics. this is ridiculous. we have campaigns on television, cable, on the radio about bullying in our schools and our children. the behavior that they are displaying is exactly what we talk about. being a problem for all of us in the nation. and i don't understand it. >> host: next up, stay in california and going to santa barbara. this is barbara on our -- diane on the republican line. hi. >> caller: hi, yeah. obama said quote unquote that somebody said that jobs killing tax cuts. but he didn't say who was he quoting. that didn't make sense. so that was interesting to hear. >> host: do you agree with the president that most of the american people would support a balanced approach that includes tax increases? >> caller: definitely tax increases will actually hurt our

economy. it's -- yeah, definitely don't agree with that. >> host: let's hear from laura in sunnyville, california. independent line. >> caller: yes, hi, good morning. i wanted to say that there is two much talk of what democrats want and what republicans want and there's fighting among people and in the government. and i think it's time for us to work together for what's good for all of us in general. yes, we have to compromise. i really think that's the most important thing. >> host: carmen in san jose, california. staying in california. what are your thoughts? >> caller: good morning. my thought is that we all need to get educated. i believe that the republican party is tone deaf or something

is wrong. the fact that they don't realize is the debt ceiling is a problem that have been going on since ronald reagan in terms of raising the debt ceiling. bush put all of the debt on to this budget -- well, he did not put it on the budget. when obama came in, he said that he wanted to have transparency. he put everything on the budget and made it clear this is what we're looking at, america. they have been blinded. republicans don't want to look at that. that is not none that he spent three years ago. someone said he's had the economy for the last three years. republicans having saying no. he hasn't gotten anything through expect for the health care. he barely got that. it's unfortunate that we are not educated enough. our information is so low that

we don't understand what's really going on. this is not money that's key spending. this is money that was spent ten years ago. >> host: we are going to continue to take a couple more of your calls. just to tell you the situation, the president has wrapped up the news conference. we will show is later on c-span in the primetime. then comments from house republican leaders. we'll show you their thoughts as well. all of this aheading of a looming august 2nd deadline by which the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling needs to be raised. this is president obama's second news conference. as far as we know, no new meetings scheduled for today or this weekend. president not mentioning that. jen in mesa, we lost you earlier. we have to back. republican line, mesa, arizona. > caller: thank you. i wanted to say when the

president put his finger out to the press and said they voted to raise the debt limit ceiling. he doesn't tell he voted against it. i think his exact word that president bush should be able to govern without the debt ceiling being raised. the other thing is he wants to get it done because he wants to go on fundraisers. they had to cancel a vacation. he wants august 2rd, because august 3 is his $35,000 plate birthday bash in chicago. he talks about the jet. the corporate jet. that one million people. get rid of the loophole and see how many people don't have work. he's being very disengine wows on all of the stuff. thank you very much. >> host: independent caller. >> caller: yes, i would be very happy to tell the president and the congressman that if we were just bring all of our moneys in and stop all of the foreign aid that we give, it

isn't appreciated, and all of the money that we spend on wars around the world, we would have plenty of money to pay off the debt in full. thank you. >> host: one more here. jacksonville, north carolina, richard independent line. >> caller: yes, sir, i appreciate you taking my call. the president spoke very eloquently. however, i have to say this, i'm a retired military. i'm somewhat disappointed in not only the president, but also the congress. they are an embarrassment to this country now. this is something they should have taken care of months and years ago. but they keep arguing and arguing about it. one the other things that i wanted to address was i read somewhere that if the -- if the irs would be able to go out and get all of the money that's due for taxes, there's over $1.4 or $1.5 trillion that was owed. if they could collect that, that

would put a big chunk of debt into the deficit that we have and the debt that we have. i would like to see the congress work together for the american people. and where they are getting thundershower numbers, because i've never been asked about any of the numbers. they say 80% and all of this. i've been never survey and asked my opinion on some of this stuff. >> host: all right. here's your chance to say. the president is saying 80% of the american people would support a balanced approach. what do you think, richard? >> caller: i'm not sure i would agree with that. like i said, i'm a retired military. i'm out of work. i've been out of work since 2008. i don't like that. because i'm always -- i've always strived to work. i'm willing to pay my fair share, including, you know, increases in my medical insurance that i pay which is tricare. i'm willing to pay more for that

to be fair for everybody. right now i've had had -- sometg i really didn't want to do, i had to apply for social security disability because of my injuries. you know, that was -- basically an embarrassment to me. i felt i let my family and let americans down. but i had no other recourse to go to. i couldn't get a job, they wouldn't hire me because of my injuries. >> host: richard, we appreciate you weighing in. we will open up the phone lines in a bit. first we want to give you a chance to hear from republicans and democrats said in the house. both of them held their caucuses today. start off from house republican leaders. then we'll come back to your phone calls. >> just in case anybody missed it, last night moody's issued a new statement about the debt

limit. the debt limit raised again and a default avoided the aaa rating would likely be confirmed. however, the outlook assigned at that time to the government bond rating would very likely to changed to negative. at the conclusion of the review unless substantial incredible agreement is achieved on a budget that includes long-term deficit reduction to sustain a stable outlook, such an agreement should include a deficit trajectory that leads to stabilization and then decline in the ratios, federal debt to gdp and debt to revenue beginning with the next few years. rough translation, there is no more road left to kick the can down the road. we have a debt crisis, not because it's too low, but because the debt is too high.

it's spending driven. our president in the previous congress has been on a spending binge. if they want an increase in the debt ceiling vote as the speaker has said, they have got to cut up the credit cards, they have got to have the president -- the president needs to put a plan on the table. not a speech, as the director of cbo has said. we cannot estimate a speech. we can only estimate a plan. it is time for the president to put his plan on the table. >> all year long we've led on the big issues that are facing our country. the house passed budget written by paul ryan and the budget committee. i think sets the standard for serious debate. we've passed and pushed for bill after bill that would create jobs by easing the burdens of regulation, expanding experts, and increasing the supply of american energy.

in the debt limit debate, our goals are simple. no one wants the united states to default on our obligations. but we won't see real economic growth without a serious plan to deal with the deficit and our deal. yesterday at the white house, secretary geithner echoed both of these points. our standard on the debt limit has been clear. there can be no tax hikes, because tax hikes destroy jobs. we need real spending cuts, and real spending cuts that will exceed the amount of increase in the debt limit. and we need real reforms to restrain the growth of spending in future years with spending jobs in like a real balanced budget amendment. listen, we're in a fourth quarter here. time and again, republicans have offered serious proposals to cut spending and address these issues. and i think it's time for the democrats to get serious as

well. we ask the president to lead, we asked him to put forward a plan. not a speech, a real plan. and he hasn't. but we will. >> good morning. you know, there's been a lot of talk with a lot of reporting about what's going on in these discussions about the white house surrounding the debt ceiling. let's just take a step back for a second and look at where we are. as the speaker indicated, the house put forward its budget and the house passed its budget. that's our provision. if we were in control of washington, we would be trying to push our agenda through both houses and see if that would be implemented. we called for $6.2 trillion in cuts over ten years. in the current discussions at the white house, the president and the democrats