have every right to the expect to be protects and expect very thoroughly to be protected, do we get into breaking the internet? it's unclear to me that in any way, by any of these types of things do we not -- do we attack the rights and privacy of the internet in their own business. >> well, i'm pleased to answer that question, mr. chairman, because preserving the dine niche, the innovatio internet g powerful instrument as it has been. absolutely a guiding premise of the work that we've done. and that's why the model that we've adopted doesn't fop traditional follow traditional rulemaking model. that simply doesn't work in the

internet environment. it doesn't operate at internet speed. that's why we've incorporated in the multistakeholder model building on top of a baseline. a floor of rights than consumers can expect and would aplif across the board regardless of the business, regardless of the sector. to develop a set of codes of conduct using the same strurps of multistakeholder, policy development standards, consensus, that have been so successful in the internet space. the world wide web consortium. the ieee. these are the governing bodies of the internet have operated not as the product of any one government, but pass a public /private partnership involving business, involving simple

society. it's worked tremendously successfully. it could work successfully in this base. space. >> if i could follow-up, mr. chairman. i think the general counce imis exactly right. privacy and innovation generally go hand in hand and you can protect consumers and proechlt innovation with with respect to do no track the proof is that the business community supports is, and is a portative of moving forward with a do not track option for consumers. >> but was it not, and then i need to call on you, commissioner, but was it also not true that a number of companies got very enthusiastic about doing, do not track on their own, right after your reports came out? >> i would say there was, among the browser companies, like microsoft and mozilla and apple, there was a lot of support for it. there continues to be. again, there are a few -- >> i'm asking about the timing question. am i wrong -- >> yes, very supportive early on and we think they've made

progress since. >> that's not the question. they came out in support right after your two reports came out? >> yes. yes. some of them also came out after the -- more amp the report. that is correct. >> yes. >> yes, sir. >> commissioner? >> so to -- >> so on breaking the internet. >> yes.figured you were. an important issue and one some commenters have raised concerns about and i think in the debate you get a wide array of views, and people express great concerns about that and other people have great concerns about consumer privacy, and we think the ftc generally tried to strike the balance of meeting consumer expectations. it consumers have protection and expect protections about their financial information and their medical information, i think the ftc has done a good job in bringing cases that, you know, advances expectations for consumers. their deception-based cases

often but on exception fairness-based cases. for me, one of the important things to look at. is it going to meet consumer preferences because consumers do also enjoy using a lot of the new benefits, new services that the internet offers. so if we have a solution that consumers ultimately end up unhappy with because they've loc lost some of these services, these conveniences that the internet provided them, i'm not sure we're strishging thing in the right balance bupt i think the important thing is to strike the right ballance for the benefit of consumers. >> thank you. snar senator udall. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sorry i wasn't here earlier. we all have so many things going on. >> we were talking. >> yeah. i understand. but -- and i hope you all forgive me. incredibly important subject and the chairman always focuses on

what the american people are concerned about, and i just hear a lot of discussion in new mexico about this whole privacy issue and i apologize if i'm going over any ground that you've already hit here, but i just had a couple of questions. chairman liebowitz, the ftc's recently settled privacy cases with well-known online companies used by millions of americans. could you explain how these settlements will benefit consumer online privacy and how have these secretary of statements encouraged other companies to change or improve their privacy policies? >> well, we have -- if you're talking about our settlements with, say, google, for google buzz and facebook, we -- we found what we believed were violations of the law essentially those companies made commitments about keeping information private that we believe they did not keep. they did not honor their commitments so we brought cases

against them and had settlements. in the settlements, they're required to be monitored. they have to engage in privacy by design. they -- and most importantly, in the -- if you combine the facebook and the google matters, they protect more than 1 billion consumers worldwide. and if those companies want to change their privacy settings, they had to give consumers an option going forward to do that and then, of course, when you're under order, unlike most attorneys general, and you missioned this discussion, i know you were, we do not have authority, but under order we can fine you for a second violation and hope, of course, we don't see second violations here. >> yeah. and mr. kerry, you note in your testimony that the european union is moving forward with data privacy regulations. is there a concern, if europe moves forward with privacy rules, while the u.s. does

nothing that european regulations will essentially become the global norm that u.s. companies follow? >> senator, thank you. yes, that is a concern. it's a concern that we've heard from many companies. i sat in remarks that, you know, i defend the american system of privacy and the commitment that we have in our laws. but, you know, we do not want to let other countries set a default standard. you know, there are certainly points in common between what we are proposing and what the european commission has proposed, but there are also concerns that -- there are ways that that gets into prescribing technology and other kinds of prescriptions that could operate

as barriers to entry. that could inhibit the free flow of information across international borders. so you know, it is important to move forward here. i think, you know, we're here, because our mission as this committee knows well, is to promote the domestic and international commerce of the united states. we would not be promotioning privacy legislation if it did not promote the foreign and domestic commerce of the united states. i think the fact we are sitting here alongside chairman liebowitz, who's prose epropose advocating for legislation reflects the con servergence of economic in this area.

important to consumers. it's important to business. it's important to global commerce. >> thank you. commissioner do you have any thoughts on those two? >> well, i do believe, you know, the international element of privacy regulation is very important, but i have to admit, it's something i need to educate myself on a little further before i could offer anything very useful at this point. >> thank you. thank you, chairman rockefeller. really appreciate it. >> thank you. the honorable tom udall, state of new mexico. i'd just like to close with a couple. you know, we talk about the digital advertising alliance is making it very clear they want to cooperate, and they appear to be doing so, but there are two areas where they still can collect information, their own definition. i think one of those is market research and the other is product development. now, i don't -- that doesn't

take me to a series of blisses or sins, but i get very nervous when i read that about those two, you know, little snippets being able to swallow up the rule. what is it that allows them to get, and after your question, can you talk about what you're doing to make sure that they don't get that, if you can? >> well, i think from the perspective of the majority of the commission, we entirely agree with you. do not track has to mean do not collect, if it's going to mean anything. there might be a few narrow enumerated exceptions. for example, for anti-fraud purposes. but we are -- we are, would go with the digital advertising alliance at this point. we think by the end of the year, i believe, that one way or another, whether legislative or by virtue of -- of resolving

some of these matters and, of course, there's another forum. the world wide web consortium, a lot of the companies working with technologies and consumer groups to come up with a standard and what it would entail. one way or another i believe by the end the year there's going to be meaningful do not track for american consumes so they can opt off third-party advertisements and that's critically important for consumers if you want to have more trust as the general council said, in internet commerce. >> i'd agree with that and guess i would close with this. that the statement was made here that it's in the nature of the internet industry, the web industry, whatever, to compete for the trust of consumers. and that in so doing, they will get the trust of consumer, and, therefore, there's no need to even consider regulation. that doesn't sort of go against my general theory of corporate america.

i mean, in other words, if you talk about competition, that's some of the most, you know, cutthroat competition that exists, going on in precisely that world at this time. people swallowing and converging and doing all kinds of things. it doesn't make sense to me that people would compete for something which is not in the their economic interest, except as they are required to do so by a higher power which understands the protection is not just -- is already on the books but protection is a part of the rule of laws, so to speak, in america. >> well, if i can just respond to that. i mean, imagine maureen and i are competitors, and maureen, the commissioner ohlhausen wants to do the right thing and want to collect the most information i can and monetize it. she's at a competitive disadvantage, because i'm making more money while she's trying to

protect consumers. >> she's been virtuous. >> she is and she is virtuous and a wonderful member of the commission already. >> and if i'm a corporation, i would probably try to advertise the fact i am virtuous and get consumers to come to my company rather than -- >> of course, if the liebowitz corporation isn't playing along and is making more money, it's not necessarily fair to the ohlhausen corporation, you understand this and that's why things like voluntary codes of conduct can be useful. it's why at end of the day we're hoping that the digital advertising alliance and the companies behind it represent i think 90% of all advertising on the internet. when you get to 90%, all making commitments not to collect, a lot of the companies i haven't talked to individually, we'd be very comfortable with limitations on collection. of the kind you and i envision. i think that that would be very,

very meaningful. for consumers. >> and if i can add, the trusts that the ohlhausen brand would build up you know, would permit another company, we won't call it the kerry company, to operate under the radar, under -- without respecting the same standards. so that's wipe we need a baseline. >> exactly. i thank all three of you very, very much. this is the beginning of the, a new beginning in this whole area, and the floor is not an easy place, and the senate is not an easy place to get legislation passed, as you may have noticed. but that doesn't stop us. we've got to do our work. and it's incredibly important. working particularly in this particular new age, controlling of the new age, set of businesses that we're dealing with. so i thank you, and the hearing is adjourned.

wrapping up testimony in-of-from the snt commerce committee. to get information on this, check out c-span's congressional directly. inside you'll find contact information for each member of the house and senate. al with district maps, committee assignments and lots more. also, cabinet member, supreme court justices and the nation's governors. you can grab a copy for $12.95 plus shipping and handling. order online at c-span.org/shop. alsowhere here in washington, ethics and public policy center hosts a day-long event that includes the unveiling of a plan to launch

religious freedom caucuses in 50 state legislatures. you can see this live on our companion network c-span. and we have more live programming coming later today with authors elinor clift and matthew spieler starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern online at bo booktv.org. coming up, a debate in wisconsin's recall election. republican incumbent scott walker challenged by milwaukee's democratic mayor tom barrett. live coverage tomorrow at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. welcome to old cow town museum. wichita, kansas. yeah! >> here in the city of wichita and trace, of course, waking up the city for 22 years. a heck of a start.

that's why the mayor comes in every wednesday. today talking about the problem we're having in the city with taxicabs. so 920, hang on if you will for that. >> june 2 and 3, exploring the hairage and literally culture of wichita, kansas. >> rather modest-looking paper wrapped binding, but what it contains is an alphabetical list of the members of the senate and the house of representatives done in 1831. i believe this was issued only as it says here members immediate use only. not that they had xerox machined but were not supposed to loan this out. because, as you can see, it would tell you exactly where everybody lives. so you could go and buttonhole them, punch them if you didn't like them. >> watch american tv on wichita on c-span2 and c-span3. coming up next, u.s.

national guard and reserve leadership testifies about proposed national guard cuts, and ways in which the operational reserve will be used as the troop drawdown continues in afghanistan. the senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hoechted the hearing yesterday. defense secretary leon panetta last month pulled back from proposed budget cuts that would have reduced the national guard's force by 5,000 people and 200 aircraft. secretary panetta said he will restore some including at least 2,200 guard positions. this is just under two hours. >> for the national guard and reserve components. from the national guard i'd like to welcome cheech ief of the nal guard burp oh, general mckinley. general england and the director of the air national guard, general warren.

all witnesses include the chief of the army reserve general stoltze, the chief of the naval reserve, admiral debbing, the commander of the marine corps reserve, general stephen hummer and the chief of the air force reserve, general charles stenner. and i would lining to thank you all for joining us today as the committee reviewses the fy 137 budget for the reserve components. this year's budget proposal significant force structure changes for the air national guard reducing end strength by 5,100 billings and aircraft by 134 aircraft. this proposal has come under intense scrutiny from the members of congress, the council of governors and many generals, and i would like to hear from you on how involved you were in

the process that proceeded the announcement and what inpupt you we asked to give. in addition over the last several years, the guard and reserve has made important changes as it transitioned from changes as they transition from a strategic to an operational reserve. this shift requires you to have deployment ready units available at all times. as we draw dawn our military forces in afghanistan, the department will need to figure out how to best utilize this new operational reserve. many challenges remain for the reserve. reserve and their families lack of support network provided for active duty installations. so it's important that our reserve families get the support

they need during the deployments and as reversists transition back to civilian life. the guard and reseven still face significant equipment shortfalls. congress has provided additional equipment funding for the guard and reserve in each of the last 32 years because year after year the president's budget fails to sufficiently fund reserve components. i'm certainly that the witnesses here this morning agree that without this additional funding, our reserve components would be woefully under equipped. >> it is our duty to our men and women of the guard and reserves called on to deploy in harm's way just like they're active duty counterparts to make certain they'red a kwutly

trained, adequately equipped. i look forward to hearing your perspective on these issues and working with you this year in support of our guardsman and reservis reservists. i'd like to thank you for your testimony this morning. your full statements will be made part of the record. we'll begin with our hearing of the panel of the national guard. i'd like to call upon mr. alexander because our vice chairman has been slightly delayed. he has just called to say he'll be coming in shortly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll condense my remarks to welcome gentlemen we look forward to your gentlemens. reequipping the guard is one of the biggest challenges facing the department of defense. i think our chairman has outlined that very aud kuwaitly and the president's proposed budget doesn't adequately

support the guard and reserve. each of us in our states are very proud of the role that our men and women have played, our army guards to 78th armored cavalry regiment about some questions has been deployed twice. many have been deployed in afghanistan and iraq. we're grateful to them and grateful to the efforts that have been made to modernize the guard. we've seen great changes in what men and women who join the guard expect to do over the last ten, 15 years. we need to be response i have to the changed conditions and the changed expectations of guard members. so i'll be listening closely to the testimony. i appreciate very much your service and your being here today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> may i now call upon the vice chairman, senator cochran.

>> thank you very much for convening the hearing. i'm pleased to join you and other senators in welcoming our panel of distinguished witnesses this morning. we thank you for your service to our nation, helping protect the safety and security of our citizens and our interests around the world. thank you. >> i now recognize general mckinley. >> distinguished members of the committee, thank you it's an honor and privilege to be here today with my two directors. as well as the other reserve chiefs, we have a very close affiliation with each other and it's a pleasure and an honor again to testify before you. i wanted to take this opportunity as i always do to thank you all for your dedication to the soldiers and airmen that we represent.

bud and bill will make some statements after i do. they have unique perspectives on the issue and concerns of or soldiers. we found ourselves in the midst of constrained budgets and tough decisions. no doubt we must all curb spending but should not at the expense of our security. what is why i must tell you that squooes ration would hollow the force substantially and devastate our national security. it would result in further severe reductions to the national guard, reserve and the active component. the ngs is already facing difficult budget cuts as you've eluded to, cuts that impact equipment and personnel. further reductions would significantly limit the guard's ability to function as an operational force, decrease the total forces overall capability, and reduce departments capacity to protect the home lan and respond to emergencies.

the national guard is a more ready, more capable and more rapidly deemployable force than ever in our nation's history as all of you know so well from your visits back home. we have and will continue to answer the call for mobilizations and volunteer support of our combatant commanders. today more than 50% of our guardsmen have combat experience. as a part time force the national guard is a proven, affordable defense option for america. during a time of constrained budgets we should continue to be usa used as an operation force to ensure the nation is getting the most defense capability at the lowest cost. as an operational force the national guard is suited to meet the new guidance, to meet steady state demands and act as a strategic hedge for unforeseen world events at any time the national guard can and will augment the active duty both the army and air force to surge and

regenerate forces. the nation also counts on the national guard to protect the homeland. your home states, common we'lls, territories and district of columbia. the national guard is the best in primary military force to respond to complex catastrophes and contributes to our security by protecting our air face and borders. while representing only a small portion of the guard's response capability last year federal and state authorities called on one of our 57 civil support teams to use their unique beps of mass destruction, assessment skills almost twice a day. every day in our hometowns. the national guard is crucial to our governors. over the past three years, they responded to an unprecedented string of disasters we're poised and ready to provide that support again. according to fema administrator craig fugate speed is the spobs.

he has said that aviation assets need to be organ toik the national guard. other options may not provide the same speed and capacity. we're located in over 3,000 communities across the country. and the national guard is positioned to respond quickly and efficiently and work close with our first responders to any domestic energy. our dual role requires that improve our equipment. the national guard reserve equipment account has been and will continue to be crucial to that agreement. it the vital to the guard as it provides opportunities for homeland defense needs and modernization of legacy equipment. after 11 years of war we continue to work closely with the united states army and the united states air force to reset our force to ensure equipment levels meet the defense strategy. as citizen soldiers and airmen, guardsmen are able to blend their unique combination of

military training and civilian skills to provide approaches to support our nation's security strategy. the state partnership program is a corner stone of the new strategic guidance and demonstrates the guard's versatility. our partnership with more than 60 foreign countries has strengthened their military capacity and confidence. most recently demonstrated in chicago with our nato summit. national guard partner nations have reduced the demand on u.s. forces. 22 partner nations have provided 11,000 troops for afghanistan and 40 partner nations have provided over 31,000 personnel and support of u.n. peacekeeping operations. this year we will celebrate 20 years of the state partnership program. we look forward to working with the generals, the governors of our states and commonwealth to continue the approach to security cooperation for the future. ch