of the democrats by passing a law saying you guys truly do have to present a budget. your constituents want to see how much money we're going to spend. and i commend jeff and olympia and martha for coming forward with a meaningful proposal that not only says that you have to pass a budget, but that also you have to be responsible in the way you do it. you can have the greatest budget in the world and have all the right numbers in it, but if you don't have enforcement mechanisms in place, like requiring the right number of votes as this particular bill does, moving the 303 point of order from 51 votes to 60 votes, for example in the senate. then all of the great numbers in a budget mean nothing. that's the type of enforcement mechanisms we need to have in place, and i'm very pleased to stand beside all these guys in a bicameral way and say it's time we got more responsible and more transparent in our budget process.

>> i'm mike lee from utah. and i think it's significant that they say you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all the time. that, nevertheless, hasn't stopped congress as an institution from doing whatever it can to fool a lot of the people over a very prolonged period of time. that's why this legislation is so important. the fooling can happen only as long as those who were aware of what's happening do nothing and remain silent. so i'm grateful to senator sessions. i'm grateful to the other sponsors of this legislation for bringing it forward. for making sure we're telling the american people what we're doing. when congress doesn't balance its budget it needs to level with the american people. when it incurs a deficit of 1 to $1.5 trillion a year it needs to tell the people what that deficit actually is and what the truly liabilities are on the books. so that it can't make it look

like we're balancing what we're not and it can't make it look like we're borrowing less than we are. i commend the sponsors and urge all of my colleagues in both houses and both parties to support this legislation. thank you. >> thank you, martha, for letting us go. we've got a 1:00 that most of our members have to be at. we turn it over to you. >> thank you to our colleagues in the senate for your leadership. anyone who needs to leave, please feel free. >> i think i'm batting first here for the house members. i need to get everybody ready here. we have a news flash. government has been lying to hard-working taxpayers about how we spend money. here's your follow-up story, though. the american people know it, all right? they know it already. and that's the joke that has been going on at so many different levels of government. and i got to tell you that they know in their heart. they know in their gut when they are looking around and sitting at their kitchen table knowing they have to put their budget

together. knowing they have to run a small business like my small sand and gravel business. as i have to go in and figure out how i'm going to pay my employees, keep their health insurance. are we going to do uniforms for them this year? what about a new loader that i have to buy? those are the tough decision vis to make. i just met with my new governor from much this morning who is here talking about how to work on unemployment insurance and how to make sure we get retraining back to our states. those are the tough decisions that our colleagues at state level to v to do. and michigan unfortunately, unlike our federal government, has a balanced budget requirement in its institution. governor snyder has to go in and make those tough decisions. what do we do at the federal level? completely different. and that is a reasonable expectation that we would have. it's sort of like saying, well, if i'm sitting around my kitchen table and things are getting really tough and i'm not sure i'll be able to pay my mortgage. we're going to cancel that premium cable package and go with the basic cable package. i'm going to take that ten years

of savings. i want to put it in this year's budget. now my numbers work. that's not how real life works, though. that isn't how any business works. it's not how any government should work. and i appreciate so many of my senate colleagues bringing up the failure of leadership that we've seen out of harry reid. you all know what this is. you've all seen it, right? most of us are walking around carrying one. it's an ipad which didn't exist 1,008 days ago when you all last passed a budget. you're right. i think it was senator sessions who said or maybe senate enzi who said we took some heat back home when we passed some very difficult budgets. the paul ryan budget out of the house of representatives. those were some tough discussions. but those were the right discussions we needed to have as an american people. so it's been referenced that there's a lot of technical things in this. it may be technical, but it's also oh, so basic. it's time that the government be honest, open and transparent with the american people how it

spends their hard-earned dollars when they entrust that to us here in the house of representatives and in the senate. so thank you very much. martha, i'm not sure who is going to go next. but we'll -- >> all right. my good colleague and friend from arkansas, tim griffin. >> arkansas. >> i said arkansas. >> thank you for your time. what we're talking about here is injecting common sense into the budget process. what we've got now is, as some before me have said is deceptive. the thing that struck me when i got here is that when we were looking for savings in the house and the senate does it and both parties do it, but we're looking for savings eight, ten years down the road. and we count that as saving money. well, the truth is, we don't know what's going to happen eight years down the road.

in fact, the congress eight years from now will decide what's spent eight years down the road. we don't have a clue what's going to happen eight or ten years down the road. so to go eight or ten years down the road and supposedly identify money that is or is not going to be spent is a joke. it's a joke. it is actually deception. and we need to stop doing it. and i applaud all the folks on this stage. i applaud representative roby for introducing this bill. and i know we've got a lot of work to do to get this passed. i think it's high time that we do it. and as some of my colleagues have said, a good start would be for harry reid to pass a budget. thank you all. >> corey gardner. >> thank you.

thank you, martha, senator sessions, for convening this today and to talk about the honest budget act. i'm corey gardner from colorado's 4th congressional district. growing up in a state, we sell farm equipment there. and under the way congress works, if we were to buy a piece of farm equipment today and then decide we were going to pay for it next year, under congress' rules, we'd be saving money this year and could get to buy another one without paying for it. if we did that in our personal lives if we did that in our businesses, we'd be broke and we'd be in jail. somehow congress, that's business as usual. is time we end the charade and start being honest to the american people. and they get it. what i have -- i've had over 60 town meetings now in colorado. normally i don't hear from somebody stand up, what about this rescission? what about this budget authority? what about this budget outlay? what about this chimp or that chimp. you know what they say? washington is spending more money than you have. you are spending money you don't have and the people who are going to pay for it are our children and grandchildren.

this -- the honest budget act brings reality to congress. the reality that we are broke and we can't fool the american people because they are on to washington. and it's time that this place live up and live under the same rules that every man and woman in this country has to live under. making their ends meet, meeting their obligations and being honest about money that we don't have. that's why i'm glad to support this bill and glad that you've got a great group of people who are committed to bringing honesty to washington and making sure that we change business as usual in this town. >> my name is austin scott. i'm from georgia's 8th congressional district. like many of the 89 freshmen republicans, about 12 months ago, i was a small business owner. working through a recession and doing the things we needed to do in our budget to make sure that the business was able to continue to operate. we would take our budget, month by month and set our revenue

estimate for the year based on the worst month that we had had in the prior 12 months. in washington, the federal government bases their budget on the best possible revenue estimate. no matter how unrealistic it might be. that's the fundamental difference between main street and washington. and it is the primary reason we have a $16 trillion national debt that main street will have to pay back. yesterday the congressional budget office announced that the united states' deficit with run $1.1 trillion for 2012. this a direct result of budget gimmicks that have been allowed to continue, regardless of which party was in control. i'm one of the 89 members of the freshman class, as i said. we have more than 300 children and grandchildren. my son is 12 years old. his name is wells. we were sent to washington to fundamentally change the way washington does business. it is a process that is broken.

it is a process that is breaking many americans. the honest budget act is the first step, and they say the first step is the hardest. but i say this is a necessary step that we must take. the honest budget act should not only put us on track to have a genuine budget. it will also put us on the path towards a balanced budget. and in georgia, we have a balanced budget amendment to our constitution just as most other states do. and i'm from the appropriations committee in the state of georgia. now, every state balances their budget. every city balances their budget. every county. every school system. every home has to balance their budget. it's not too much to ask that washington balance its budget as well. martha, i want to thank you for this piece of legislation that can help get this country back on track and thank you for allowing me to be a part of it. steve? >> i will be -- i will be brief. i'm steve sutherland. and i'm from panama city,

florida, representing florida's 2nd congressional district. i will tell you, this wonderful piece of legislation, honest budget act, i am saddened to tell the american people, honest budget, washington, d.c., has neither. neither. this is a joke. it angers me. it breaks my heart. my father told me when i was a child. son, tell the truth and you won't ever have to have a good memory. we are lying to the american people. my god, we are lying to ourselves. it is embarrassing what we have become here. the american people know the truth. we believe several of us know the truth. it is time. it is time that we act and practice courage. and i applaud representative

roby. i applaud senator sessions for putting their money where their mouth is, for stepping forward and implementing god-given principles of honesty and integrity. you cannot build a marriage or a home without honesty. you cannot build a church, an organization, a family business that i come from, and you cannot build a government apart from honesty. we owe an apology, and i beg the forgiveness of the american people. i am sorry for where we are. it breaks my heart. but this wonderful piece of legislation hopefully will say to the american people, we want to do better. we will do better. and our commitment with this act is to end the games as usual. to be truthful. to be honest. and to do something that

washington has not enjoyed for an awful long time. a newfound integrity with those we represent. thank you so much for being here. and i pray that our colleagues in both houses realize the serious nature of my words and act appropriately. thank you. >> thank you, congressman sutherland. and i do believe you touched on the fundamental point there that we need responsibility in this congress, and we haven't had it. the house did, indeed, pass a very important, realistic budget that altered the debt course of america. it put us off the road to decline and on the road to prosperity. senator harry reid, the democratic leader, said it would be foolish for us to pass a budget. he didn't mean that -- and i've said this on the floor. he knows i've said it. he didn't mean that because it's

foolish for america that we would have a budget. he meant for the politics of the senate because as has been suggested, you pass a realistic budget today, some people are going to be complaining. it's not easy. it takes courage. so i thank all of you for having the courage to produce a budget, and i am embarrassed and apologized the united states senate has gone over 1,000 days without having a budget. so, martha, thank you for introducing it. i'm hopeful senator snowe and i believe she couldn't be with us today, but olympia and i believe that if the house can move this bill to success, i don't believe there can be many logical and principal arguments against it. and i think it would increase dramatically our ability to get it passed. thank you for your leadership. any questions that you'd like to -- yes. >> the debt now equals the size of the economy.

s&p is warning of another downgrade. do you foresee the u.s. being downgraded again? >> well, that's very possible because we're not altering the debt course we're on. the experts who are looking at our economy, and we've had a number of them testify before the budget committee. basically have said we should have started last year. the debt commission said we should have started last year. what they planned to reduce the deficits over a period of time that would gain credibility in the markets. so the president in his state of the union message, i was just deeply disappointed that he made no reference to the threat that debt may mean -- america faces. so this is going to be hard to do it without the president's leadership. without him looking the american people in the eye and saying we really do have a problem. but as someone has said earlier, i think the american people are getting it. and that was a big factor in the

last election. we're not on the right course. we don't change this course, we'll ton see downgrades. and i would quote erskine bowles. and allan simpson said this nation has never faced a more predictable crisis. quote. and what he was saying if you don't change the debt course, we're going to have a financial reckoning. it's just a question of when. mary? >> senator if all these gimmicks were eliminated tomorrow, how much money would that save? secondly, what if any application does any of this legislation have to -- >> it's $350 billion. we score over five years would have been saved had this bill been in effect. and it does prohibit what we

call chimps, a manipulation of the mandatory spending. changes in mandatory spending. and that can create more integrity in that process, but it does not mandate any fundamental changes in mandatory spending. >> we'll take one more question. >> okay. one more question. over here, sir. >> congresswoman roby have you reached out to any house democrats? are they against this bill? >> let me just say, i think what is represented here on this stage today is a huge first step as it relates to this bill that was originated in the senate and certainly we have made the appropriate changes for the house. as you know, our points of order are different animals and we had to make the changes -- the technical changes so we could apply these same rules to the house. what you see represented up here today is a group of freshmen. there's almost one-third of the republican freshmen class that have taken the initiative to put

their names on this bill as a start. certainly we hope in days to come and as senator sessions referenced, if we can move this through the house with bipartisan support, certainly we think that there's a real good chance that we could see some positive things shape up in the senate. this is not the answer to all of our problems. we know that. it's the tip of the iceberg, but as was stated earlier as well, sometimes the first step is the hardest, and i am just really, really honored to have the support of all of our freshmen colleagues here and we look forward to getting grand bipartisan support down the road. so i just want to -- >> sorry. bill heizynga, 2nd district of michigan. i have approached some of our democratic colleagues about this concept. both some of the blue dogs, as well as much more progressive members. it strikes a chord with them as well. i think sort of the nature of

washington these days, everybody is looking for the land mines, though. and i -- the political land mines. there are a number of democrats that are intrigued by the concept because they know as well, they hear it from their constituents, that we're not being open and honest and transparent. and people -- i believe genuinely that people on both sides of the aisle are looking for real solutions. so they are intrigued by it. we just need to make sure we continue to push that. >> we will. thank you all for being here. really appreciate your time. senator sessions, thanks for your leadership and all of your senate colleagues. we appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you.

coming up next, a senate panel examines video rental privacy laws. and then the head of general motors said politics are behind the disproportionate level of scrutiny behind the chevy volt since its batteries leaked and started fires after crash tests. this is c-span3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week and every weekend, american history tv. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. get our schedules and see past programs at our website. and join in the conversation on these social media sites. in december, the u.s. house voted to change a 1988 law that restricted the disclosure of video rental histories without customers' written consent. now the senate is taking up the legislation. we'll hear from officials at netflix and the electronic

privacy information center. this senate judiciary subcommittee hearing on privacy and technology is about 90 minutes. >> it's my pleasure to welcome all of you to the third hearing of the senate judiciary subcommittee on privacy, technology and the law. now before we start, i just want to applaud the supreme court for its decision in the jones case. it was, i believe, the right result, but it was also call to action to congress because while law enforcement now needs a warrant to track your location, all of the companies that get your location information almost every day, your smartphone company, your in-car navigation company and even the apps on your phone are still in most cases free to give out your location whomever they want as long as it isn't the government. i have a bill to fix that, and i think we need to take action on

it right away. but today's hearing is -- will focus on the video privacy protection act. a powerful privacy law that was written and passed by chairman leahy and grassley. i want to use this hearing to make sure that everyone knows what the video privacy protection act is and how it protects our privacy and our civil liberties. i want to look at how we might update the video privacy protection act and i want to look at a specific bill to amend the law that was just passed in the house. 25 years ago, judge robert bjork was before the full senate judiciary committee as a nominee to the supreme court. during that hearing, a local reporter ask judge bjork's video store for a record of the movies he had watched.

there was no law against it, so the video store gave him the records and the reporter wrote a story about them. the senate judiciary committee was split on judge bjork's nomination but it was unanimous in its outrage over what hat happened. there wasn't anything particularly memorable about judge bjork's movie rentals. in fact, they consisted primarily of mysteries and caper fil films. t but that wasn't the point. the movies we choose to watch are our business and nobody else's. soon after this, senator leahy and senator grassley introduced the video privacy protection act. the bill was reported out of the committee unanimously and passed through the senate and the house on voice votes. there has been renewed interest in the video privacy protection act in recent months and i think that is great. but i've seen a lot of people

talking about the law like it was some kind of relic. something that is so outdated that it doesn't make sense -- any sense anymore. so i want to take a moment to explain in simple terms what this law does for consumers. thanks to the video privacy protection act, your video company can't tell other people what you are watching unless you give them permission to do that. now when chairman leahy and senator grassley wrote the law, they were really smart about it, if i might say. they didn't just say that a video company has to at some point get you to sign some form that says i am okay with you telling people what i watch. no, they said that every time a video company wants to tell people what you watch, they have to check with you first. and that's an important right because you probably don't care if people know that you watch

some summer blockbuster. but if you are suddenly having trouble with your marriage and you are trying to get help, you might not want your friends and relatives to find out that you've been watching videos about marriage counseling or divorce. i also think that parents of a young child may want to watch documentaries about autism or developmental disabilities without broadcasting that to the world. this can be really sensitive stuff. and that's why the video privacy protection act is so important. it gives you the right to tell your video company what can be shared and what cannot. the video privacy protection act also protects your privacy against the government. under the law if the government wants to get your viewing records, it has to get a warrant. a grand jury subpoena. or a court order. this came up in one famous case where a local police department

thought that the 1979 movie "the tin drum" was obscene. now mind you this was a movie about what happened in nazi germany just before world war ii. it won an oscar for best foreign film, but the police department went out and seized a list of everyone who had the movie and then drove around confiscating every copy. and in that dhairx ac k case, t chapter used the video privacy protection act to stop that. and so without objection, i will add to the record a letter from the american civil liberties union that stresses that this is a civil liberties law, too, not just a consumer protection law. the video privacy protection act also makes sure that video companies don't keep information about what you've watched after that information is no longer

needed. this protects that information from getting lost, stolen or hacked. finally, the law gives people the try to have their day in court to defend their rights of a video company or the government violates these rights. so the video privacy protection act is a really important law for consumer privacy and for civil liberties. but things do change in a quarter century, and i'm calling this hearing to see if we can update the law so that it can protect our privacy for another 25 years. one way we need to update this law is to make sure that it is keeping up with technology. it used to be that if you wanted to watch a video you had to go to the video store or then wait for it in the mail after that. now you can stream it directly to your computer in seconds. streaming is the future of video, but no judge has ever decided whether or not the video

privacy protection act covers streaming video companies. i think it's clear that the law does cover new technologies like streamings because it doesn't just cover, quote, prerecorded video cassette tapes. it also covers similar audio/visual materials. but i do think there is a real risk that a judge might look at this law and say it doesn't cover streaming. it just covers the dvds and vhs tapes and things like that. so i don't want to leave the future of video privacy up to a judge. so if we're updating the video privacy protection act, i think we need to confirm that it covers video streaming technology. i also know that the courts are split about whether or not people have the right to enforce data retention -- the data retention provision. that might need to be clarified as well. those are just two ideas. i'm sure the witnesses will have other suggestions.

my goal here is to lay the groundwork for a fair and comprehensive update of the entirety of this law. before i close, i want to touch on hr-2471. it recently passed house bill that would modify one ospaect of the video privacy protection act. it lets the video company ask for your consent, just once, up front to disclose the videos you watch. instead of asking for consent on a case-by-case basis. netflix has strongly supported this bill and has explained that it will make it easier for them to integrate into social media sites like facebook. i'm pleased to report that netflix is here with us today to talk about their support. i want to be honest, based on what i've seen so far, i have some reservations about hr-2471. first, it looks like the bill will