in the consumer privacy bill of rights. and we also have a view of how we think these protections should be implemented. we think the multi-stakeholder process, especially with legislation as a backstop with privacy protections, in laws of backstop, can actually develop rules, new privacy practices, much more rapidly than a traditional a.p.a. style rule-making process. so what we would like to see is for ledge stligs provide a safe harbor framework within which companies would on the one hand be held accountable to the seven principles in the consumer privacy bill of rights but would be able to go to the federal trade commission and seek safe harbor approval of their implementation of the consumer privacy bill of rights and essentially get a yes or no, up or down answer from the ftc whether that company's code of conduct or industry's code of

conduct actually meets the conditions of the consumer privacy bill of rights based on a safe harbor finding, there would be some sort of agreement to forbear from enforcement, assuming the company actually keeps its promises in the act. there's a lot to work out in how to actually implement this kind of safe harbor mechanism but it's a process by which we think we can keep privacy rules fresh, 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 just a final point about our view of the global picture. i know that some of you heard from the director general of dg just that's the part of the european commission responsible for what they call data protection. i think everyone's aware that we have a -- there are significant differences between the european

front privacy framework and 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 enforceable codes of conduct, that in the united states, that has the force of law. it is an agreement that's binding on the companies. it is an agreement that is enforceable by the federal trade commission under the statute we propose we would also seek to have those 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. and i'm happy to take questions. and tim's back there with the mike. >> as i was about to say, 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 overregulate 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 is that consumers really do want a clear sense of wa their legal rights are. we want to make sure that the federal trade commission has a clear basis for enforcing privacy rights. frankly, we want to make sure in a that's -- that 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 that 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 just 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 is found to have, "adequate privacy

laws." now, because we don't have any single, comprehensive privacy protection statute in the u.s., europe has never found us adequate. we actually think we're quite 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. by the way, i'll point out if you look at facebook and google and twitter, the estimates are that there are over a 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 recognized for doing it, and i think there's good progress in that dimension. the core challenge that i think we have on this adequacy question is -- really has to do more, as i said, with the mechanisms we have for privacy protection in law than for 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 for all kinds of historical reasons because we're more of a common law system than a civil system and any number of other reasons, but we clearly believe that establishes this kind of privacy model in the united states law would both be helpful in europe but also would be 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 beginning 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 innovation 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 seemed to feel, or to be 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, the administration is doing a good enough job, in your view, of getting across its vi view, business' 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

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 lowering barriers for 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 which the european commission 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 authorities in many of 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 near term about working on 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 u.s./eu safe 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 important baseline 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 rethinking our privacy protection framework. we've worked he very hard to make sure europe framework is open to the global nature's the -- so there is a 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 in and out, in and around europe. those are things that can happen 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 inclusive, given those preferences? >> 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, tim. thanks, everyone. appreciate it. coming up over the next few here's here on c-span3, take a look at obama administration's and congress' republican budget proposal for next year. in a few minutes with begin with former capitol hill and white house staffers foped by a hearing on the indian affairs

budget for 2013. after that, attorney general eric holder on the justice department's proposed budget for next year. this is c-span3 with politics and public affairs programming throughout the week, and every weekend, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story on "american history tv." get our schedules and see past programs on our websites. and you can join in the conversation on social media sites. just over 30 years president reagan nominated sandra day o'connor as the first woman on the u.s. supreme court. justice o'connor talks to the women who followed her to the court. it will be live on c-span2 starting at 6:30 eastern. indiana senator richard lugar is running for his seventh term and being challenged in the republican primary by state

treasurer richard mourdock. see it live debate from minneapolis live on c-span starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern. april 15th, 1912. nearly 1,500 perish on the ship once felt unsinkable. >> they struck the bell, three times. ding, ding, ding, which is a warning saying that there's some object ahead. doesn't mean dead ahead, but doesn't say what kind of object. with the lookout, after he struck the bell, he went to a telephone desk and calmed doled to the officer on the bridge to tell them what it is they say. when the phone was finally answered, the entire conversation was, what do you see? and the response was, iceberg right ahead. and the response from the officer was, thank you.

>> samuel halpern on the truths and myths of that night sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern. part of "american history tv" this weekend on c-span3. president obama's proposed budget for next year totals $3.8 trillion with a deficit of $900 million. national journal recently host add discussion on the budget, the deficit and the debt. this is about half an hour. next we have our discussion with our panel of experts. joining us this morning we have steve bell, senior director of economic policy, the bipartisan policy center. lora peterson, senior policy analyst, taxpayers for common sense and ethan polec, senior policy analyst, the economic policy institute. our moderator for this morning's panel is jim tankersly, the economics correspondent for "national journal." jim joined us from the tribune

washington bureau covering energy, environment and politics for newspapers including the "los angeles times" and the "chicago tribune," previously worked at the "to lead ledo bla" he won the 2007 livingston award for young journeyists of stories revealing the true roots of ohio's economic decline and part of the coingate team at the toledo blade, a finalist for the pulitzer prize. jim? >> thank you so much. thank you all for sticking around. i'm a numbers nerd myself, and i've been delighted with the amount of numbers so far. but i want to start without numbers and start with raw numbers. how numbers and how we should do this, 5 trillion here, 4 trillion there. let's talk about what's going to happen. right? what's -- what does this look like a year from now? both from the lame duck and going forward.

how much closer do you all think we will be towards actual, you know, fiscal health, towards balancing our budget and most importantly, where will those budget balancing measures actually have come from. we'll start with you, sir. >> history would tell us, if you look at graham and haulens enacted 25 years ago, an amendment to get a debt ceiling passed which should remind you of what happened last summer, history tells us that it will take that kind of brinkmanship, frankly, to get something done. our estimate at the bipartisan policy center is that sometime in late december or early january, treasury will announce they have to resort to extraordinary measures because of the debt ceiling would be breached. that and the exploration of the bush tax cuts and implementation under current law sequester, as mr. van hollen said, offers some possibility, but you know, after

40 years of doing this and being a doorscotts i have to say the odds are they'll kick most of these grenades down until the bomb vigilantes decide to exact punishment. >> do you agree with chairman ryan it's waiting for this election and once that's over they'll pounce? >> you know, it's not a secret. movies as already told us if nothing happens by january they will downgrade the sovereign debt. fitch says the same thing and john chambers of standard & poor's who makes the decisions said the same thing. the three major ratings agencies saying if you don't act we're going to downgrade you further and i believe them. >> the sequester, do we think it will happen? will it actually go through or is it going to be shifted somehow? >> i'm not sure i would argue

that the sequester as now envisioned will go through. i think there's enough constituencies in congress that don't want to see that. there will be some alternative, but i do think that money is coming out of the defense department. i think that that $500 billion is going to have to come out one way or the other. i think both sides neend i think the pentagon knows it. look at the books. you can kick stuff down the, you know, the road for a while, until, you know, you really kind of come up against the wall. that's where they are right now. i think there's going to be lots of imaginations similar to what we saw early this year. strategy reviews. a lot of choreography to make sure that it looks, that the pentagon looks like they're you know, in control, and that they're calling the shots and this is not being decideed by the bean counters and that kind of thing, but i think whether it is through sequestration or through a budget that eventually you know, takes it out here and

there, thatt emoney will come o eventually. >> is the pentagon in control? larder to cut this if the generals didn't want to do it, as the chairen was intimating? >> i had to laugh when he said that. what the jenning would think about chairman ryan saying, basically blasting their boss, the commander in chief. look, i have no doubt that chairman ryan, like many chairman before him have had plenty of discussions with generals and said i would like more money. i think that happens all the time and i think generals go, you know -- it's a -- it's part of the process. they go to the hill and talk to chairman, and they say, this is what we'd like, and they particularly for my service, d and, you know, they always want more. they're not really in the business of cutting. they're in the business of saying, this is what i want to do. so i'm not sure, back to your question, which was -- >> yes. >> -- i think that the

pentagon -- a big part of the strategy review we saw earlier this year was, negotiations that happened last year were basically gates basically said, okay. we see this is coming down the pike, but we want to make the decisions. we don't just want congress or someone else handing us some kind of mandate. i think they're going to maintain that argument that they want the decisions about the cuts to originate with them, and so they'll push for that, and i think that they will probably be you know, under panetta and obama that they -- they may very well get it, but i just think it's unavoidable, that there's going to be more than the $497 billion coming out of the defense budget. >> speaking of mandates, talk about what mandate comes out of the election, particularly aspiring tax cuts and how they get dealt with. how do you foresee that going and -- because a huge

ramification, both on deficit reduction, but also on growth. >> that's true. i mean, the irony sheer that if we do go based on current law and don't do anything, than the path we're headed on is actually for the budget, not necessarily that when we do get to fiscal sustainability. not quite in the way a lot of members of congress or members on the stage want to go. at the same time we vo recognize these are choices we're making that we do have a path laid out for us. we can choose a different path, but at the same time, the one path we shouldn't take is basically just ignore all that and continue down the same kind of current policy path that we're headed. in terms of getting some sort of mandate, i think it really depends on who wins. mitt romney right now is running on a platform that actually increases the deficit substantially. so if he wins, it's going to be difficult for him to then implement deficit reduction, because that means that he is