mr. coburn. no by proxy. mr. chairman. >> aye. >> mr. chairman, the votes are 11 ayes seven nays. >> and senator feinstein, thank you for holding back. go ahead. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have opposed this in the past. i see no reason to change my point of view. let me give you my opinion. the court does not want this. they do not speak out as a whole but justicesbreyer, scalia, rehnquist, kennedy, and alito have opposed it. so five justices oppose this plus the judicial counts of the united states. i don't believe we should tell the supreme court what to do. we are separate branches of government. and i do not believe the justice is better because it's televised. i have seen actual situations where in my view it is worse where it is televised. i understand that there is a move to do this. this bill does have a narrow exception except that exception is so narrow that it is rarely used. i believe it opens the door to television and in my observations when this reaches the trial court you see prosecutors perform. you see defense attorn

mr. coburn. >> first of all, let me thank you for your testimony. i learned a lot from what you had to say. and i'm prone to agree with the chairman on his concerns about this bill. as i look at it. and i really don't see a big difference from granting permission one click at a time to a blanket consent, but i also think prudence in the protection of privacy should be guiding us. no question, netflix with their policy throughout the rest of the world that is not available here to online consent for that, gives them an asset, my asset, my privacy asset that i have readily given to them if i have one of those that grants a blanket consent somewhere outside this country where i am giving them something of value that they can use and make money off of. i'm not sure, i'm torn between whether we have the right to tell somebody whether they can grant a blanket consent or not. i don't know that that is our role. but i know it our role to be concerned about the ultimate privacy protection that individuals deserve. so, i would go back and i would ask the prof

mr. chairman, senator coburn, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today. as you know, there are few issues of greater concern to internet users than the protection of privacy. in fact according to the federal trade commission over the past decade the top of priority of american consumers has been privacy and identity theft. so this is timely and of great concern to a lot of people. i want to begin by talking about the purpose and passage of the video protection privacy act. as you suggested this is a smart and forward looking piece of legislation, among the various provisions that congress enacted 25 years ago was one that said, let's not keep personal information longer than is necessary. today we have an enormous problem in the country with data breeches, identity theft and companies keeping date on their customers and clients for much longer than they should fortunately in this area, there were strong safeguards that have prevented and protected our users of these new services from those types of problems. what the video privacy protection act sought to

. >> then i'll go to the ranking member, senator coburn, for his opening remarks. thank you. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i believe the video privacy protection act has become antiquated given all the new technology that's out there. and i would just note that you right now can share your music preferences through spotify by signing up one time. you can share your book preferences by signing up one time. you can share your television programs through hulu through signing up one time. and news articles through social reader by signing up one time. i think the chairman of the subcommittee makes some good points, and i am anxious to hear congressman watt and his thoughts on this. i did have a chance to talk to your ranking member yesterday. and hear his input in it. and i look forward to the input. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you to the ranking member. i think we'll go to our first witness. that's what the chairman would like. and what the chairman would like, chairman gets. our first witness is the honorable melvin l. watt, distinguished representative for north carolina's 12th d

senator coburn for his opening remarks. thank you, senator. >> mr. chairman, thank you, i believe the video privacy act has become out dated given all the new technology that is out there and i would just note that you, right now, can share your music preferences through spotify by signing up one time, you can share your book prese e preferences by signing up one time and you can share your video programs with hulu by signing up one time. i think the chairman of the sub committee makes some good points and i'm anxious to hear congressman watt and his thoughts on this. i did have a chance to talk to your ranking member yesterday and hear his input in it and i look forward to the input, thank you, mr. thank you, to the ran member. i think we will go to our first witness and that is what the chairman would like, the chairman gets. our first witness is the honorable melvin l watt, distinguished representative of the 12th district. he serves to house committee. prior to his election to the house of representatives, representative watt practiced civil righ

coburn? >> yes. >> senator brown? >> no. >> senator mccain? >> yes. >> senator johnson? >> aye. >> senator portman? >> aye by proxy. >> senator paul? >> yes. >> senator moran? >> no. >> senator lieberman? >> no. >> mr. chairman on the vote of those present, the ayes are five, the nays are 12. and the amendment is not agreed to. >> okay. senator akaka. you're next. >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman. i want to offer akaka amendment number one, to strike title three regarding governmentwide workers compensation or feca reform. let me tell you why i'm offering this. feca reform should not be done in postal reform. most of the employees affected by this are not postal employees. and the savings expected from these changes would have very little effect on the postal service's deficit. feca has not been reformed in close to 40 years. we need to take a closer look at comprehensive reforms to make shush we get it right and we -- to make sure we get it right and we can include adequate measures to reduce waste. there are complex issues related to the appropriate benefit levels that deserve more analysis before we cut benefits. at a hearing i held in july, witnesses raised serious concerns with reducing f

coburn? >> no by proxy. >> senator brown? >> no. >> senator mccain? >> no by proxy. >> senator johnson? >> no. >> senator portman? >> no by proxy. >> senator paul? >> no. >> senator moran? >> no. >> senator lieberman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the ayes are five, the nays are eight. on the vote by proxy, the yays are zero, the nays are three. on this vote the ayes are five, the nays are 11. and the amendment is not agreed to. >> i thank the clerk. thank you, senator akaka. of those here, let me indicate that next we'll go to senator johnson and then senator mccaskill. then senator paul, then senator tester, then senator moran and then senator begich. all of whom have amendments pending. senator johnson? >> thank you. i'd like to offer johnson amendment number one and only. i would -- like my colleague from kansas, new to this process, and as i studied the issue, there's pretty -- pretty eye popping charge here that the gao study laid out the deficits of the 30esal service and it's $250 billion and it is a quasi private quasi governmental agency here, but the fact of the matter is if we experience those types of deficits we'll be on the hook for it. or the taxpayers will be on the hook

coburn? >> aye by proxy. >> senator brown? >> no by proxy. >> senator mccain? aye by proxy. >> senator johnson? >> aye by proxy. >> senator portman. >> no by proxy. >> senator paul? >> aye. >> senator moran? >> aye. >> senator lieberman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, on the vote of those present, the ayes are two, the nays are six. >> can i ask the clerk to go back to the senators we passed. >> senator landrieu. >> yes by proxy. >> senator mccaskill. >> no by proxy. >> and senator brown has just appeared so rather than his voting by proxy -- >> senator brown? okay. mr. chairman, on the vote of those present the ayes are two, the nays are seven. on the vote by proxy the ayes are four, the nays are four. on this vote, the ayes are six, the nays are ten and the amendment is notgr >> all right. i thank the clerk. thank you senator paul. senator pryor? >> i think that senator landrieu wanted to be noted that she based her vote on the napoleonic code. listen, this amendment should be noncontroversial. i think we haven't passed an amendment yet so maybe this will be the first one. >> we passed one. >> we passed one? >> noncontroversial. >> there we go. i would like to, at the appropriate time, ask that senator mccaskill and senator landrieu be

mr. coburn, for himself and mr. mccain, proposes amendment numbered 1474. mr. coburn: mr. president, this is another good-government amendment. what this says, and if we want to restore confidence, this is something we should do. it says before we vote on a bill, we're going to have at least 72 hours to read it. it's going to be available on line with a c.b.o. score so when we cast a vote we actually know what we're casting a vote on, and we actually know how much it costs. it just says it has to be online for 72 hours, in other words, we get the privilege of reading the bills we're voting on. and we also get the privilege of knowing the financial cost of the bills or at least an estimate of the financial cost that they will entail. this transparency is designed to make the senate better. you want a bill -- to build confidence with the american public? then the way you build confidence is assure them that you knew exactly what you were doing when you cast a vote. not guessing at what the consequences and the details of that legislation are. for many pieces of legislation,

mr. udall: i have a longer statement i would like to include in the record. senator coburn and i don't always agree on the reach of government and the investments we ought to make, but we agree our government ought to be smart, efficient and it shouldn't have duplication. this amendment will see us to that goal. 63 of us voted for this amendment last year. let's get 63 votes and more. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i respectfully oppose the amendment put in by my two friends. this would amend the senate rules to make it out of water for the senate to proceed to any bill or joint resolution unless the committee of jurisdiction has posted on its web site a c.r.s. analysis of whether the bill would create a new program, office or initiative that duplicates or overlaps an existing one. so it sounds pretty good on the surface. two problems. one is that c.r.s. tells us it would be hard pressed to carry out this responsibility, certainly in a timely manner, and the second results from the first, which is that t