stripe cards etic that are available in the industry today. >> we've been talking today bout going to the m. v.technology. there with a pin. both agree here that >> thank you. company has poor can --y practices, they the commission has used this. theauthority admirably in past. there is no comprehensive federal law that sets up a data security standard for companies

that store data. . you think this precludes the need for a federal dado security ? >> no, i don't. we have used our authority under section five of the ftc act. we think we have used it effectively. in particular, we think there are three areas we could issue authority. we would like to see legislation that would give the fcc civil penalty authorities. that will enable us to deter more effectively. we also believe that we need jurisdiction over nonprofits. we found that a number of

breaches occur at nonprofits. we lack authority over nonprofits. that is a gap we would like to see filled. in addition, to implement data security effectively, we would think it is appropriate to give the ftc, rulemaking authority to enable us to deal with the in this risks and harms area. >> thank you. this is why it is important we get this legislation. i want to ask. this is unrelated. it is something i have been interested in. testimony, hen said the department can use better tools to go after

operators of spy software. this is a huge problem. every year, tens of thousands of women are stalked through the use of stocking apps. stalking apps. install this on a phone and track whereabouts at all times. we have received testimony in my subcommittee on this time and again. found withinn be minutes through web search. brags it use you -- it gives you total control of your partner's phone without you knowing it. see where they are or were at any given date and time. start spying on a cell phone in minutes.

spyera.is called interrupted,ever and will not notice a thing. where.l know when and i have a privacy bill specifically aimed at shutting these down. to giveo work with you us, to give you the tools we need to do that. can we work together? >> absolutely. we appreciate support you can give us in this area. it is a frightening capability. we are focused on criminal threats. one of the tools that could be helpful in our fight against this kind of software is civil authorities to forfeit proceeds of the crime. i'd be happy to speak further with you and your staff on those particulars. >> senator blumenthal.

>> thank you. thank you for your great work in this area. thank you chairman ramirez for inr focus and interest additional authority, which i agree is important. the ftc has brought authority rules, andse some take some enforcement action when there has been a failure to impose sufficiently stringent safeguards to protect information. expanding that in the ways you have suggested makes sense. i have introduced a bill that would provide for remaking authority, but also skip the multi-. and possibly -- and skip the penalty. stringent penalties if the congress will go along with them. the potential damage is so horrific for identity theft.

it provides for mandatory notification, a clearinghouse, and a private right of access. rules, whatce these do you think about a private right of action? >> the commission does not take a position on the issue of private interaction, but concurrent state enforcement, we believe that is critical. states have done very important work in this arena. we think it is vital for them to continue to be involved. >> what has been the reaction of nonprofits? the they been ahead of for-profit sector, or behind? >> i think we have seen problems

amongst all companies. including nonprofits. that's an area we lack jurisdiction, we think the gap that needs to be rectified so we can have jurisdiction. as i mentioned earlier, the data we have available today, i reference the verizon data indicatet continues to the companies need to do more in this area that fundamental mistakes are being made. of course, this is a complex problem. >> am i correct in that the united states is behind the rest of the world insat -- in safeguards?

heard about the lack of use of chip and pin methodology. europe, prevalent in and maybe the lack of use here is a reason not only for the neiman marcus and target breaches, but for the fact that almost half of the world's credit card fraud occurs here. there seems to be a disparity that indicates we are behind in the rest of the world. >> let me say that while the we do not prescribe or recommend particular technologies, it is a concern to me that our payment card system can need improvement. more work could be done in that area. it is critical from my perspective that card systems be secure and protected. i think it is important that all of the players in the ecosystem

all work together to find solutions. >> any of the other witnesses have perspectives? >> i have perspective in the fact that you can come up with devices that will secure credit card data. it doesn't alleviate the fact that we are talking about it is still criminals doing it. these criminals are motivated by money. they are financially motivated. they are going to use whatever they have that their disposal to steal the pot of gold. it doesn't take away the criminal element. it adds a layer that could add a layer of security. i want to make a point that when we are talking but the criminal element, it is law enforcement and the work that is being done between the department of justice and law-enforcement that is going to have the criminals to put them behind bars. taking the virtual world and

making it reality with handcuffs. >> i agree. securing data is incredibly important for all american consumers. from a lawn for some point of view, anything that strengthens our ability secure that data is a good thing. us less necessary. if there are fewer breaches, and if there are fewer attempts to get us to the data. having that been said, it is right. malware adapts every day. criminals are early adopters of almost every kind of technology. our challenge is to stay ahead of them. >> there is an arms race. there always has been. not only in this area, but in so many others. of lawn forcedit myself, federal and state, i am aware that there will never be the full proof safeguards, or

the impenetrable lock on the door. but, if you leave the door completely unlocked, it is an invitation to bad guys. i do not want to say we have left the door unlocked in retail. but, certainly, the locks are less sophisticated than the technology available would provide. you may not have been here earlier. the industry, or industries have real soul-searching to do about whether they have in sufficiently protective of consumer information. apprehend, you can investigate, prosecute criminals. compensate does that them?

-- compensate them. .hat is just the start the tragic fact of the matter, preventing these crimes is often the only way to protect consumers. you can prosecute them if you can apprehend them. we are talking about global activity here. theftctims of identity are often really scarred for life. i respect your point of view. i do think stronger preventive actions would come with rulemaking authority, stiffer penalties on retailers, which provides an incentive to do the right thing. i think they are needed. thank you all. >> thank you. thank you all. whatnk following up on

senator blumenthal has said, today's hearing has made it clear that we're dealing with a systemic data security problem. we received testimony in the first panel that debit cards aren't secure enough. we have no federal standards for data security breach notification. we have to update our card technology and laws to address these threats to our data security. when millions of american consumers have data breached, we can't afford not to. that is why i have been pressing for credit and debit card companies on their plans to enhance our security from improvements like smart chip technology and chip and pin. proud to joinwas chairman lay he just -- chairman

we should do everything we can win that happens. the witnessesk for their testimony today. they help us understand not only how these occur, but how we can move forward at this point to better protect consumers and enforce our laws. the record will be held open until february 11 for questions discussion. this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> reaction from the white house to the congressional budget report that the health care law world -- health care law. thehouse panel examines u.s. marijuana policy. nuclearons that the propulsion school. >> we will talk to john mica about u.s. marijuana policy. marilyn representative donna edwards will discuss the cbo report that the deficit will drop. carmona willchard give an update for research to improve survival rates from ied and mass shooting incidents.

you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. live each morning at 7:00. >> i came to conduct the investigation. conductedent investigations for a year and a half. in the field of finance, i had a great [inaudible] call a manuld even if we knew that he was invoking the fifth amendment. >> concerning peace -- justicek, associate william o douglas.

nationwide on xm satellite radio 120. the obama administration's health-care law would reduce the workforce participation by the equivalent of 2 million full-time jobs by 2017 according to the congressional budget office. furman spoke to reporters about the finding. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i hope you all are well. thanks for your patience. as you can see, i have with me today jason furman, the chairman of the president's council of economic advisors. because i know there's interest in today's c.b.o. report, i

asked jason to join me. he will say a few words at the top, then take questions from you on that subject and others related to his expertise. i enjoy having other people making sentences for me so it's good to have jason here to do this work and i will stand by for questions on other subjects. so if you take all your questions related to matters that jason handles at the top, i'll be here for when he goes. thanks. >> thank you very much, jay. wanted to start with the main thing with the c.b.o. report, which is about the federal budget. and it confirms the very substantial near-term improvements that the united states has made in its deficit. in particular, it finds that the deficit last year was 4.1% of g.d.p.

that's cutting the deficit the president inherited in half and the fastest pace of deficit reduction since the demobilization from world war ii. the c.b.o. report also finds that the deficit will continue to decline in the near term, falling by another $200 billion in the next two years, falling to 2.6% of g.d.p. that number's important because from the very beginning, the president's economic team and the president thought that the most important goal in fiscal policy was to ensure that your debt was falling as a share of the economy. and having deficits below 3% of g.d.p. are consistent with that goal. c.b.o. does also find and confirm that there is over the medium and long term still a substantial deficit challenge and that's why you're going to

see the president's budget once again as it has in previous years continue to propose deficit reductions over the medium and long run, as it makes investments in jobs and priorities as well. turning now to appendix c of the report. since that seems to have attracted some interest from some people. i can give you a little bit of context for the impact the affordable care act has had on labor markets and will have on labor markets and the economy going forward. first, since the affordable care act has passed, the private sector has added 8.1 million jobs. that's the fastest pace of private sector job growth since the late 1990's and i think that fully puts to rest a lot of the more overwrought predictions about how the sky would fall and

the economy would be deeply damaged by the affordable care act. turning now to this report, c.b.o. itself says that in a very important way, the affordable care act today right now is helping labor markets, is helping businesses, and is helping jobs. and in particular, what c.b.o. finds is that the tax credits for health coverage, medicaid, will help put more money in people's pockets, help them able to spend more and that will provide a boost to the economy, to give you the full quote, quote, the expanded federal subsidies for health insurance will stimulate demand for goods and services and that affect will mostly occur over the next few years -- effect will mostly occur in the next few years.

that will help employers hire more workers or increase employees' hours during that period. we've seen claims that the affordable care act is impacting the job market today. for example, numerous allegations that it's increased part-time employment. c.b.o. refutes that, saying, quote, in c.b.o.'s judgment, there's no compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of the a.c.a. that is what the a.c.a. is doing to labor markets in the near term, right now, the economy today. finally, the report talks about what happens to labor markets over time. which the report defines as 2017 through 2024. that too refutes one of the main attacks and criticisms against the affordable care act, which is that it would lead employers to shed jobs, that it would lead employers to dramatically cut back on hours, and increase the

unemployment rate. in fact, what c.b.o. found, and this is their summary quote, near the top of appendix c, again, quote, the estimated reduction, this is the reduction in the total quantity of labor that all of you have seen and talked about, quote, the estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in businesses' demand for labor. what's relevant about that is the word itself is choose. this is a choice on the part of workers. and i have no doubt that if, for example, we got rid of social security and medicare there are many 95-year-olds that would choose to work more to avoid, you know, potentially starving or to give themselves an opportunity to get health care. i don't think anyone would say

that was a compelling argument to eliminate social security and medicare. similarly here, c.b.o.'s analysis itself is about the choices that workers are making in the face of new options afforded to them by the affordable care act, not something about firms destroying jobs. the final thing i'd like to say is that c.b.o. themselves stress that their analysis is not complete. it doesn't reflect the full set of factors. and that there's substantial uncertainty around their analysis. in particular, i think there's three very important ways that the affordable care act is and will continue to improve labor markets that weren't reflected here. the first is an increase in the productivity of workers, because of fewer sick days, less disability, and generally improved productivity as a result. the second is something that council of economic advisors has

done a report on, which is contributing to the slowest pace of per capita health spending growth in the last 50 years. that slowest pace since the last 50 years is a fact. we documented the ways in which the affordable care act is one of the important factors that has contributed to that slowdown. what that does is it helps employers in the short and medium run. it lowers some of their compensation costs, helps them hire more workers. and then finally, by giving people more security in terms of their health care, it reduces what we commonly call job lock or gives more opportunities for entrepreneurism and moving from job to job. in addition to that, as i said, there's a lot of uncertainty. i think economists would debate some of the assumptions here and i'd expect there to be a robust debate around things like how much workers respond to a set of phase-outs that in other parts of social programs you generally haven't seen people respond to

and some of the degrees assumed here. but regardsless of that, as i said, this report confirms the a.c.a. is making positive impacts today in very important ways, it refutes some of the arguments about how it has hurt the labor market today, or will hurt it in the future. and it confirms what we've all known, which is when you do something like that gives people more choices and more options and people will sometimes make different choices in the face of new choices and new options. >> i guess that you think this report refutes the idea that it's going to be businesses that are cutting back on jobs. but even if some of these nearly 2 1/2 million people were going to leave full-time jobs are doing it because they're choosing to, doesn't just the sheer idea of losing 2 1/2 million jobs over 10 years have a negative economic impact? >> first of all, two things. one is, i every month go out on tv to talk about the jobs

numbers. every month pretty much every one of you that does television in here asks me the question, you know, if something bad happened last month, wasn't that because of the affordable care act? or there's been an increase in part-time employment lately, which was true in the spring, it hasn't been true in the last couple of months, isn't that because of the affordable care act? so over and over again there has been the claim that the affordable care act is impacting the labor market today. this refutes that. in the long run, first of all, as i said, getting rid of social security and medicare would cause more 95-year-olds to work. we don't think that would be an effective economic strategy. for boosting the economy or particularly wise policy. so you can ask that question in the context here. second of all, the numbers themselves don't incorporate some of the important ways in which this does help labor markets by improving productivity, reducing the growth of health care, reducing job loss and thus increasing

entrepreneurialism. when you look at the affordable care act as a whole, it's good for the economy and gives more choices. >> but the report is saying that the affordable care act will have the impact on the labor market of reducing full-time employment by 2 1/2 million jobs over the next 10 years? >> the report finds that there will be less -- workers will choose to supply less labor, correct. it's described as a choice. it's not that the businesses are cutting those jobs. >> if you're losing that many jobs, i'm really trying to understand this here. if you're losing that many jobs, regardless of why you're losing them, doesn't that have some kind of negative impact on the economy? >> just a small picky thing. it doesn't say losing jobs. it says f.t.e.'s. so to some degree this might be somebody who used to work 60 hours because they needed health insurance and that was the only job that offered it and now they can get a different job at 35 hours that doesn't offer health insurance but they're getting it

through this and they're switching from one to the other and that's a better choice for that person. and this has given them that option that they didn't used to have. as i said, you wouldn't judge whether social security and medicare are good or bad based on what they do to labor supply. i'm not contesting that fewer 95-year-olds work because of that program. that's not the way anyone would look at anything that we choose to legislate and judge it. but, finally, i'm not necessarily saying that the 2 1/2 million number gives a complete picture of all of the myriad effects of the affordable care act. c.b.o. says, for example, the a.c.a. could also alter labor productivity, the amount of output generated per hour, which would influence employment and then it says, you know, that their report isn't taking into account factors like that because they're harder to quantify and be sure about.

it's not the same as saying it doesn't matter. >> do you refute any of the data that the report is using? >> i -- c.b.o. does excellent work. we cite c.b.o. all the time.