keep them up to date, keep them flexible so they're responsive to consumer needs but also allow companies to continue to innovate rapidly. i want to make a final point about our view of the global picture. i know that some of you heard from the director general of dg justice, part of the european commission responsible for data protection. i think everyone's aware that we have a -- there are significant differences between the european privacy framework the u.s. privacy framework. i would say, and we have spent a considerable amount of time in dialogue with our counterparts in europe on these issues. i think that what we've learned is that we actually have quite a bit of commonality on the broad privacy principles that we all

share. the differences come in the regulatory enforcement style and in the fact that we do still have a gap here in the protection of consumer privacy rights under law. that's a gap that we very much hope to fill. we think that as soon as that's filled, there would be the basis for entering a conversation with the europeans about really significantly lowering the barriers to the cross border flow of personal information between the u.s. and europe. but even in advance of that, we have been working very hard to explain to our european counterparts that once a company makes a commitment or an industry makes a commitment to one of these enforcible codes of conduct, in the united states that commitment has the force of law. it is an agreement that's binding on the companies. it is an agreement that is enenfor enenforceable under the federal

trade commission. we would seek to have agreements enforceable by state attorneys general. we certainly think that one of the critical privacy protection questions, particularly in the commercial context, is to find a way to reduce the barriers that we have today between the united states and europe in the way that services that use personal information are governed. i want to just close with a final word from the president that's in the introduction to the consumer privacy bill of rights that we released. he said, one thing should be clear, even though we live in a world in which we share personal information more freely than in the past we must reject the conclusion that privacy is an outmoded value. it's been at the heart of the democracy from its inception and we need it now more than ever. so that's our basis for going

forward. we look forward to working with all of you. i'm happy to take questions. and tim's back there with the mike. >> thank you for participating and coming and doing this briefing. i have a question. we wanted to open it up for any questions you may have. come up to the podium, the microphone here or do a phil donahue thing and bring it out to you if that's okay. my question is specifically on the framework if i could ask, as proposed, how important, how much of a linchpin is it that congress enact legislation? can this framework go on with success without legislation? how important is it not only for your view of success, in ntia's view of success but also meeting

a level of adequacy when it comes to the european commission's privacy directive? >> it's an excellent question. i'd say that we think that a long run -- in the long run, legislation is essential here. and there's two reasons. first of all, i think that there was a sense in the mid '90s when we first engaged the question of internet privacy in the united states, that this was a very new environment, that we didn't want to certainly overregular late it, we wanted to allow it to continue to evolve and we still feel that way. i think what we've learned that is we actually, in the framework that we described in the legislative model that we described, that we can maintain the kind of flexibility for continued innovation while at the same time providing increased certainty for consumers. we think it's the right time to do this. we think that we have a decade or more of experience of this

kind of interaction, and i think what we've learned from that decade that is consumers do want a clear sense of what their legal rights are. we want to make sure that the federal trade commissionis for privacy rights. frankly, we want to make sure that's clear both to consumers and to businesses. we think that a clear set of rights, if implemented in a way that's careful, in a way that's flexible, can provide increased certainty to innovators as well as to individuals. i'd stress in particular, we heard, during the two years of developing this process, that small businesses, that innovators, start-ups in the internet environment, have a growing set of questions about what it is their they're expected to do and not expected to do in this in environment. we think a statute can provide clarity and provide the basis for continued innovation. on the european front, you know,

it's -- it's a complicated question. i think it's very clear that if the united states enacted a privacy protection statute of the sort that we described here, that that would go a long way, that would probably provide the basis for what you refer to, tim, as an adequacy finding. let me say what that means. european privacy law provides that personal information about europeans cannot be transferred outside of europe to any third country unless that country's found to have, quote, adequate privacy laws. now, because we don't have any single, comprehensive privacy protection statute in the u.s., europe has never found us adequa adequate. we think we have, as i've said an extraordinary privacy protection enforcement authority in the federal trade commission, anyone thinks that that they don't adequately enforce

consumer expectations of privacy should talk to facebook, google, twitter, or any of the other companies investigated aggressively and now under 20-year consent decrees. i'll point out if you look at facebook and google and twitter, the estimates are that there are over billion individual users across the three services. it's interesting. last time i checked, we don't have a billion people in the united states. so we have a case here where the united states consumer protection authority, that the europeans have said is not adequate, is actually doing the work of privacy protection all around the world. i think it's what they should be doing, but we very strongly believe that they should be recognizes for doing it and i think there's good progress in that dimension. the core challenge that i think we have on thissed coin si question is really has to do more as i said with the mechanisms we have for privacy

protection in law than the underlying principles. we share a common set of principles with europe. we we share -- and through international agreements such as at the organization for economic cooperation and development, we've all agreed to a common set of privacy principles. however, from the european policy perspective, i think it's sometimes difficult for them to look at the large collection of privacy laws that we have and view that as adequate. they have one overarching privacy protect framework and they don't understand why we don't have one of those, too. and the reason we don't is, you foe, for all kind of historical reasons, we're more than a common law than civil law system, and any number of other reasons, but we -- we clearly believe that establishing this kind of privacy model in the

united states law would both be helpful in europe but also helpful for the numerous other countries that are in the process of trying to determine how they should be regulating privacy. these are the world is obviously a lot bigger than the united states and europe. right now, because of very aggressive advocacy by europe, many third countries in asia, in south america, in africa, are againing to enact european style privacy laws that we think are quite a bit too restrictive, that can be limiting for innovation, that can limit opportunities for united states companies doing business in those third countries. we think it's very important for congress to be able to establish an alternative model to the european model. we wouldn't try to say that it's more protective of privacy. we also wouldn't say it's less protective of privacy, but it's

a different model and we think it's one that can advance technology in the new enkninnovn environment. >> thank you. any questions? >> lynn stanton, tr dally. last week there was a hearing before the house committee with larry strickland and chairman leibovitz and a number of members are concerned about restrictions on business and how it might curtail innovation to have this kind of legislation. do you think you're doing a good enough job or the administration's doing a good enough job of getting across its view, in your opinion, businesses' view, this would be helpful to innovation, to business? >> that's why we're here. i think that, you know, we're at the beginning here of the legislative discussion. we've spent two years developing

the policy framework and establishing what we think is the right model. we clearly -- we have said very clearly that if businesses followed the principles expressed in the consumer privacy bill of rights, there ought to nobody additional regulatory burden. i think a number of members who look at this question may be imposing a traditional view of how a regulatory process works, where there is a long cycle of rule making and judicial challenges and, you know, a lot of uncertainty, which we think would be harmful. so we've proposed a model that is a nonregulatory model but that still provides for legally binding rights for consumers and would also provide legal certainty for businesses. in many cases, that legal certainty would be based on businesses actually following the practices they currently follow today because we think that many businesses actually

have responsible privacy practices. they have good relationships with their users. and they're able to continue along. so, i think we'll certainly begin a phase of working with congress to make sure there is a way to enact this so it doesn't impose undue burdens but i don't hear, really, i think it's important to distinguish the question of whether the burdens are excessive from the question of whether underlying protection is actually needed. there may be some who have the view that we actually done need any privacy protection at all that individuals can fend for themselves. that's not our view. we view this as a base ex-con sum consumer protection need and expressed a framework it can be achieved without burden on innovation. >> you've mentioned there are some gaps between what's going on here and in europe and after

assuming that legislation is passed here, that you all hope to talk with europe about we f information sharing. just wanted you to elaborate on what that would mean. >> sure. this is a reference to the adequacy process that exists under the current european data protection directive, a process actually makes a legal finding that the laws and policies in some third country are, quote, adequate to protect european citizens' privacy and then information is able to flow freely across borders, companies doing business in europe can move personal information back and forth between europe and wherever the company, those companies, are located. we are at the same time, and that's a process that we could begin based on having a statute enacted, we have -- there are

things we're doing right now, though, we have been in discussion, as i said, with european commission officials as well as the data protection the european countries, and members of the european parliament now considering, who actually have the job of determining what the new european privacy protection framework will be. they've expressed very strong support for the principles expressed in the consumer privacy bill of rights, and we are talking with them in the making sure that the current u.s. eu safe harbor framework remains in place and remains strong. thousands of u.s. businesses depend on the harbor agreement to mange sure they can do business in europe. we would like to see that expanded in a number of different dimensions.

but we think that's a very rt to begin with in advance of whatever statutory changes we will have, both in europe and the u.s. i think it's really important to stress that both death entities the country and european union are in the process of ivate protection fra. we've wke he ve hary hard to make sure europe maim fraframew open. the national adequacy mechanism, that's based on state of national law, there are other mechanisms that european countries have begun to develop the data protection authorities have begun to develop which make it easier for companies doing business on a global basis, which means any internet company, which make it easier to move information and out and around ee. things that can happn

in advance of any legislative changes in the u.s. and we are working very hard with our european counterparts to make sure that whatever we do in u.s. law, which we're obviously thinking very careful about and people in the room have responsibility for that at the same time, as europe evolves their law that they keep in mind the imperative of keeping the internet open globally. >> hi. common sense media. also last week's hearing, several of the industry folks on the panel expressed a preference for discussions that were private and discussions that were mainly held by industry players. how will the stakeholder process respond to that and how will you create a process that's open and includive, given thopreferences? >> i can't comment on what the industry witnesses said or

didn't say, but we've said from the very beginning the process that will be run by ntia will be an open process, open for anyone to participate, the discussions will be transparent, publicly visible. we're going to work hard to make sure those who want to participate who may not be in washington or don't have a way to get to washington are able to have views expressed and follow the process and be active participants. i'd also say that the process of coming to consensus is always complicated. we're not going to try to prevent anyone from having conversations that are quiet. we just want to make sure that at the end of the day what comes out in the process the agreements that come out, have received the broadest possible public input. >> danny, if there are no more questions, i wanted to thank you for coming down and doing this briefing and appreciate you

taking the time. >> thanks, everyone. appreciate it. the hid of the internatiomoy funds speaks on the international monetary agenda. she's speaking the international news gathering. president obama speaks to the group this afternoon. he's going to give his take on the house republican 2013 budget passed last week. live coverage also on c-span. primaries under way in wisconsin with, maryland, and the district of columbia, 95 delegates at stake. you can see live coverage of the primary results and candidate reaction tonight starting at 7:00 eastern on c-span. now tonight here on c-span3, american history tv prime time. each night while congress is on

break this week and next, tone the founding of america, the university of oklahoma recently hosted a symposium with historians david mccall la and david hackett fisher. c-span's 2012 local content vehicle cities tour takes book tv and american history tv programming on the road. the first weekend of each month. this past weekend featured little rock, arkansas, with book tv at the high school collection, at the university of arkansas. >> collected photographs and particularly again interested in the 19th century, the civil war in particular. these are two friends, union and confederate, who knew each or prior to the civil war who fought against each other at the the battle in 1862, survived the war, came out alive, and remained friends after the war. here they are at age 100, sitting on the porch, talking about old days. >> american history tv looked at life in a world war ii japanese

interment camp. >> a woman wrote a wonderful book, surviving the unsurvivable sort of. she talks a lot about how the arts and the crafts were sort of how they kept their sanity and it gave them something to do and about how depression was so bad in a lot of the camps and that people -- there was the high indents of suicide and so people would make these little things of beauty to give to each other just as a way to say, you know, we support you and care about you. >> lcv cities tour continues the weekend of may 5th and 6th from oklahoma city on c-span 2 and 3. air force officials are investigating the cause of oxygen system problems in f-22 fighter jets. the pentagon says the air force experienced 14 incidents from

2008 to 2010. the air force has been directed to modify the handle that engages the emergency oxygen system in its fleet of f-22 raptor fighter jets. >> welcome general retired greggry martin chair of the advisory board. major general noel jones, air force deputy chief of staff for operations plans and requirements, and major general charlie lyon, air combat commander's director of operations. the gentlemen on the panel represent nearly 12,000 flight airs in air force aircraft and extraordinary depth of experience to discuss the f-22 study in the way ahead. they are here to provide an update on the air force scientif scientifst air force study and discuss f-22 operations since flight resumed in september 2011. major general jones?

>> thanks. ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. thanks for joining us here. today's update is on an issue of great importance to our air force and you, the media. the progress of the air force's scientificed advisory board stu on f-22 oxygen generation system. we agree with the attention that it's received. we hope today's session will satisfily address your questions. our f-22 aircraft and the people who fly and maintain them are our national treasure. no other aircraft can match the f-22's combination of speed, stealth, maneuverer ability. its integrated avionics make it survive in high-threat environments, simply put, there is no other fighter in the world that can do what it does and this airplaneness capability is crucial to national security now and well into the future. last year we determined that f-22 pilots were having

unexplained in-flight physiological events at an unacceptable rate,we took action. secretary of the air force donely asked scientific advisory board to conduct a study of the aircraft's oxygen generation system and some of the best minds in our nation were assigned to this task. including scientists, engineers, and medical professionals. they were led general retired greg martin, whom we are fortunate to have with us today. this team worked together for seven months agoing t ini inves incidents and the aircraft. general martin briefed the secretary and chief of staff on findings and offered a list of recommendations for the air force to consider as we move forward. these findings and recommendations are available in your media packet and general mart will explain them to you in further detail today. general martin? >> thank you. thank you all for being here and giving us the opportunity to share with you some of the insights and lessons that we

learned as we went through this event. i was the claire of the study that the scientific advisory board, study on aircraft oxygen generation systems. not the chair of the air force scientific advisory board but rather the claire of the study. what i'll do is lay out the foundation of that study and its formation a little bit about its process, some about the recommendations, but i think you have in your press package there the complete list of findings and recommendations so i won't go through each of those with you. first of all with respect to the formation of the air force scientific advisory board from 2008, april 2008 until may 2010, the air force experienced 14 physiological incidents with the fleet of f-22s. each of those incidents was thoroughly investigated through the normal air force safety and

investigation processes. but of those incidents, ten, as a result of the investigations done, did not reveal a root cause, and that -- the point that general jones mentioned, was what concerned the air force. now in terms of numbers, at that -- at the time of that last incident, the 14th incident last may, the air force had flown about 100,000 hours in the f-22 fleet. so that equates to one unexplained incident of every 10,000 hours or every 9,000 sorties. that gives you an appreciation for how often an event might occur. none theless, although those are relatively known numbers it was the unexplained nature of incidents that caused the air force some amount of concern and to establish a broad area review

that the sacientific advisory board took on. leading up to that charter for the air force scientific advisory board in january of 2010, as a result of the incidents that occurred up to that point, a special class-e safety investigation board was commissioned by the air combat command, and major general at that time, now lieutenant general, steve hogue, ran that team. and he put together what i would consider to be na that safety investigation board the nucleus of the team that we worked with throughout our seven months to try to get to the bottom of the root causes for those incidents. in the may time frame, as general hogue was presenting his update brief to the chief and secretary and to the commander of the air combat command, the

air force experienced three physiological incidents in the f-22 between the last couple of days of april and the first three days of may, and at that point chose to ground the fleet. it was also at that time that general hogue, based on the investigations that he had run and the tests, primary ground tests and protocols for the ground test of the life support system of the aircraft, it was his recommendation to the chief and secretary that they establish a broad area review team to look at things besides just the f-22 life support system as it is, but rather, how it got -- how it was developed what si led to some of the incidents that perhaps had occurred and also to ensure that we better understood not just the f-22 on board oxygen generation system and life support system, but

also to take a look at the other aircraft that use the onboard oxygen generation systems to determine if there were some lessons learned from the f-22 that would apply with those aircraft as well. as a result of that recommendation, the chief and secretary chartered the air force scientific advisory board to take that study on and the study was listed as the aircraft on board generation system. the charter was developed and in june of 2010, the team formed. at that time i was asked to chair it which i did, and i then formed the team we had nine members on the team. we can go into details on each of the people if you would like to later. i will tell you that there were three main thrusts in it. there were several, several, tasks given but three main thrusts. one determine the causes of the f-22 physiological incidents and how to safely return the f-22

normal operations because, as a result of those three incidents that occurred at the end of april and early may the f-22 fleet was grounded. then understand the circumstances that may have led the f-22 to experience an unusually high rate of unexplained physiological incidents and make appropriation recommendation to preclude similar circumstances in the future. and then review the other aircraft as i mentioned, using on board oxygen generation systems to determine if there are lessons learned that they could benefit from. that's the gist of the charter. at that point, we had nine members that joined the team but we worked hand in hand with the ongoing safety investigation board which is a formal air force process for investigation. the scientific advisory board does not normally get involved with ongoing activities. they usually take a longer term perspective from a sign and technology perspective but they also have resident on the board as w a