in using these financial tools. i would just say that we implement these laws and we do not look at the country of origin. >> thank you so much for your government surface -- service. i want to touch back on -- there seems to be a lack of accountability among the federal officers. we cannot get a name or a number and we are trying to provide food, shelter, clothing to people in refugee camps. our banks have a question, we have a conversation, we cannot seem to get everybody at the table.

>> i think they do an outstanding job in very difficult circumstances. there are often cases that are just heart in terms of flows of funds consistent with our laws but have the effect of providing relief at the same time, not just in syria. it comes up in many troubling parts of the world. i am happy to look into the question of access and communication. we strive to a high level of clarity and communication. sometimes the issues relate to specific matters that are not public matters. i would have to look at the specific matter. >> good morning.

my question is about the trade promotion authority in the headline yesterday in one of the papers about the pushback from democrats, we will need bipartisan approval for fast-track and given the fact that we started the year with this new budget and deal in congress, which suggests that we will not be as toxic this year as the past, i am wondering what your plans are for whipping into place a bipartisan authority given the pushback from some of the democrats. >> i do not think there is anything new or unusual about the current need for there to be bipartisan support.

it has always required a bipartisan effort. there have always been challenges on both sides for different reasons. we have worked on a bipartisan basis with leaders of the committee and we will continue to work with the congress to get it done. the president has made clear that it is important. there is the ability for there to be a bipartisan conversation. it is never easy. >> do you care to venture an estimate about a time frame? >> i am very hopeful that the next round of discussions really accelerates the pace of process -- progress and that will have implications in terms of other schedules. >> six months, 12 months? >> i will not put a number on

it. he pushed you have the meeting at the end of last year. he will continue pressing so those hard issues that require countries to move across the finish line get queued up. >> 20 years ago, jim baker engineered the plaza agreement. the japanese have engineered a 20% devaluation of their currency. would you expect it to have a similar impact? >> the challenges facing japan and their economy have been profound for almost two decades.

it has been a recurring argument made by the united states japan needed to take action to reverse almost two decades of deflation and economic decline. they have put in place policies. we still have to see what the third arrow of their policies are. those are the real reforms that will determine whether or not the future is one where they will grow their domestic economy, domestic demand, and be able to continue to have the kind of growth they are seeing because of the shorter-term policies. it was very important the last year there was an agreement at the g7 and the g 20 that has stuck. countries will be hold themselves to the rule that they will use domestic tools

for domestic purposes to grow their economy. that is a critically important frame and something japan has to stick to. they need to get their domestic economy growing. long-term growth cannot be rooted in a strategy that turns in any way toward a reliance on unfair advantage because of exchange rates. we have kept an eye on that. we continue to analyze it very closely. as long as they stick to those rules, it is in japan's interest and the world interest for japan's economy to grow. the four big economies of the world, if any one of them is performing subpar, it creates problems that flow well beyond the borders.

we have to keep an eye on it. we cannot let it turn from the kinds of policies that are domestic purposes, but it is important for japan to grow. >> thank you, secretary. i would like to hear from you the lessons learned from the free trade agreements. there is a lot of doubt and uncertainty in the unemployment we have been experiencing for the last 10 years since the wto

has suffered the currency war with the rising power of china. our question to you is as the secretary of treasury, where do you see what we need to do to ensure the implementation phase of our agreements to save our currency and our jobs? >> we have been very clear in all of our conversations in the multilateral negotiations and our bilateral conversations that we need a level playing field with clear rules and those rules need to be enforced. taking enforcement actions to make sure the agreements are adhered to is a critical part

of having effective rules of the road. rules that are not followed are not really rules. that is why wto actions are brought from time to time. the goal is to have countries observe the rules, not to be in a place for one has to be taking action, to enforce the rules. if you go back to what i was saying a few minutes ago in terms of the negotiation, i was recently in asia and went to a range of countries with extremely different economies. japan, china, malaysia vietnam, and singapore. each of the countries had a very different point of internal economic development, there was a desire to participate in a trade agreement. there was also anxiety.

those are the kinds of issues being negotiated with sensitivity to the fact that if we get the countries to credible and enforceable high-level rules, it is good for each of us individually and it is good for us locally. it is not good for us if the rules are broken and we need to be vigilant. when we make agreements, the agreements are kept. >> you have to get to work before the stock markets open at 9:30 a.m. i want to thank you and the council for holding this event.

>> national security writer james bamford will react to president obama's speech. plus we'll be looking for your calls, tweets and e-mails on the issue beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> so the situation then is

very similar to the credit card industry. so we all have credit cards and then there's the credit card company and then on the other side of that there's the restaurant. it's very useful for ressraunts that we all have credit cards and it's useful for us that all the restaurants will take them. but it's not so useful if the gate keeper says now some of these restaurants we're not going to allow them to participate in the system. translating that to the present, if the internet service provider were to say not all the people who are putting the contents on their computers, we don't want all of them to have access to all of the users, that's a problem. >> this weekend on c-span, a look at the impact of the d.c. circuit court ruling on broadband and high speed internet regulations. this morning author gary young examines the speech.

today at 3:30 part of three days of programming this holiday weekend. and c-span 3's american history tv looks at emancipation, reconstruction and race. atlanta after the civil war. surned morning at 11:00. >> 300 years ago the first pine nears crossed the oceans to a new world. a promise called the promise of a land where a man could build his own house, bomb farm -- farm his own acres and raise his children in freedom. yet, in one of the great river valleys of america something went wrong. in the tennessee valley three centuries later the descendents of the pin nirs were neglected people living in a ruined land. for these children, the hope and the promise were dead. >> the ten valley authority was a project that was one of the early new deal projects, was

really a project and the concept which had been under conversation for some years before franklin roosevelt became president. frank norris of nebraska, senator, was looking to help improve the quality of life in the tennessee river valley to bring flood control to generate some electrical power and to improve the lives of the people living in the tennessee river valley one of the poorest regions at the end of the 1920s and it's a serious attempt at remaking the social and economic lives of the people living in the river valley. >> this weekend on book tv and american history tv, a look at the history and literary life of chattanooga tennessee. >> president obama outlined changes friday to some of the government's surveillance

programs. specifically both phone and data record collection. he also spoke about monitoring communications of leaders and u.s. allies. his remarks are about 45 minutes. >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you so much. please, have a seat. at the dawn of our public, a small secret surveillance committee born out of the sons of liberty was established in boston. the group's members included paul revere. they would patrol the streets at night, reporting any signs that the british were preparing raids against america's early patriots.

in the civil war, union balloons reconnaissance tracked the size of confederate armies by tracking the number of campfires. in world war ii, codebreakers gave us insight into the japanese war plans. they intercepted communications, help save the lives of the troops. after the war, the rise of the iron curtain and nuclear weapons only increased the need for sustained intelligence. in the early days of the cold war, president truman created the national security agency or nsa, to give us insight into the soviet block and provider leaders with information they needed to confront and avert catastrophe. we have benefited from both our

constitution and our traditions of limited government. u.s. intelligence agencies were anchored in a system of checks and balances with oversights from elected leaders and protections for ordinary citizens. meanwhile, totalitarian states like east germany offered a cautionary tale of what could happen when vast unchecked surveillance turn citizens into informers and persecuted people for what they said in the privacy of their own homes. even the united states proved not to be immune to the abuse of surveillance. in the 1960's, governments spied on civil rights leaders. additional laws were established in 1970's to ensure that our intelligence capabilities would not be misused against our citizens. in the long twilight struggle

against communism, we have been reminded that the very liberties that we thought to preserve could not be sacrificed at the altar of national security. as the fall of the soviet union left america without a competing superpower, emerging threats from terrorist groups and the proliferation of weapons of mass distraction placed new and in some ways more complicated demands to our intelligence agencies. globalization and the internet may be spreads more acute as technology a raised borders and allowed individuals to protect great violence, as well is great good. these new threats raised new policy questions. while few doubted the legitimacy of spying on hostile states, our framework of laws was not fully adapted to prevent terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own or acting in small ideological-driven groups.

the horror of september 11 brought all these issues to the forefront. across the local spectrum, americans recognized that we had to adapt to a world in which a bomb could be built in the basement and our electrical grid to be shut down by operators and ocean away. we were shaken by the signs we had missed. phone calls were made to extremists. they traveled to suspicious places. we demanded that our intelligence community improve it's capabilities. and that law enforcement change practices to focus more on preventing attacks before they happen rather than prosecuting terrorists after an attack. it's hard to overstate the

transformation america's intelligence community had to go through after 9/11. our agencies suddenly needed to do far more than the traditional mission of monitoring hostile powers and gathering information for policymakers. instead, they were now asked to identify targets, plotters and some of the most remote parts of the world and to anticipate the actions of networks that by their very nature cannot be easily penetrated with spies or informants. it is a testimony to the hard work and dedication of the men and women of our intelligence community that over the past decade we have made enormous strides in filling this mission. today, new capabilities allow intelligence agencies to track who a terrorist is in contact with and follow the trail of his travel or his money. new laws allow information to be collected and shared more

quickly and effectively between federal agents and state and local law enforcement. relationships with foreign intelligence services have expanded an art capacity to repel cyber attacks have been strengthened. taken together, these efforts have prevented multiple attacks and save innocent lives. not just here in the united states, but around the globe. and yet, in our rush to respond to a very real set of threats, the risk of government overreach, the possibility that we lose some of our core liberties in pursuit of security also became more pronounced. we saw an immediate aftermath of 9/11 our government engaged in enhanced interrogation techniques that contradicted our values.

as a senator, i was critical of several practices. all too often, new authorities were instituted without adequate public debate. the action by the courts increased congressional oversight, and adjustments by the previous administration, some of the worst excesses were curbed by the time i took office. a variety of factors have continued to complicate america's efforts to both defend our nation and uphold our civil liberties. first, the same technological advancements that allowed u.s. intelligence agencies to pinpoint an al qaeda phone line or an e-mail between two terrorists also mean that routine medications around the world are within our reach. at a time when more and more of our lives are digital, that

prospect is disquieting for all of us. second, the combination of increased digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of shifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads that may thwart impending threats. that is a powerful tool. the government collection and storage of such bulk data also creates a potential for abuse. third, the legal safeguards that restrict surveillance against u.s. persons without a warrant do not apply to persons overseas. this is not unique to america. few spy agencies around the world constrain their activities beyond their borders. the whole point of intelligence

is to obtain information that is not publicly available. america's capabilities are unique. the power of new technology means that there are fewer and fewer technical constraints on what we can do. that places a special obligation on us to ask tough questions about what we should do. finally, intelligence agencies cannot function without secrecy, which makes their work more subject to public debate. yet, there is an inevitable bias, not only within the intelligence community, but amongst all of us who are responsible for national security to collect more information about the world, not less. so in the absence of institutional requirements for regular debate, and oversight

that is public as well as private or classified, the danger of government overreach becomes more acute. it is particularly true when surveillance technology and a reliance on digital information is evolving much more quickly than our loss. for all these reasons, i maintained a healthy skepticism towards our surveillance programs when i became president. i ordered that they be reviewed by my national security team and our lawyers. in some cases, i ordered changes in how we do business. we increased oversight and auditing, including new structures aimed at compliance. we sought to keep congress continually updated on these activities. what i did not do was stop these programs wholesale. not only because i felt that

they made us more secure, but also because nothing in that initial review and nothing that i've learned since indicated that our intelligence agency has sought to violate the law or cavalier about the civil liberties of their citizens. to the contrary, in the next row nearly difficult job, one in which actions are second- guessed, success is unreported and failure can be catastrophic, the men and women of the intelligence community, including the nsa, consistently followed protocol to protect the privacy of ordinary people. they're not abusing authorities in order to listen to your private phone calls or read your e-mails. when mistakes are made and which is inevitable in any large and complicated human enterprise, they correct those mistakes.

they are unable to discuss their work with family or friends. the men and women of the nsa know that if another 9/11 or massive cyber attack occurs they will be asked why they failed to connect the dots. those who work at nsa and other intelligence agencies throughout this pressure have the knowledge that they play a central role in the defense of our nation. now, to say that our intelligence maybe followed the law and is staffed by patriots is not to suggest that i or others in my administration felt complacent about the potential impacts of these programs. those of us who hold office in america have the responsibility to our constitution.

while i was confident in the integrity of those who lead our intelligence community, it was clear to me in observing our intelligence operations on a regular basis that changes in our technological capabilities were raising new questions about the privacy safeguards currently in place. moreover, after an extended review of our use of drones in the fight against terrorist networks, i believe a fresh examination of our surveillance programs was a necessary next step in our effort to get off the footing we maintained since 9/11. for these reasons, indicated in a speech at the national defense university last may that we need a robust public discussion about the balance between security and liberty. of course, what i did not know the time was that within weeks of my speech an avalanche of unauthorized disclosures would spark controversy that has

continued to this day. given the open investigation, i will not dwell on mr. snowden's actions. i will say our nation's defense depends in part on the fidelity of those in trust with our nation secrets. if any individual who objects to government policy can take it into their own hands to publicly disclose classified information than we will not be able to keep our people safe or conduct foreign policy. moreover, the sensational way in which these disclosures had come out has shed more heat than light, revealing information to our adversaries in ways that we may not understand for years to come. the task right now is greater

than simply repairing the damage done to our operations or preventing more disclosures from taking place in the future. instead, we have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and constitution requires. we need to do so not only because it is right, but because the challenges posed by threats like terrorism and proliferation and cyber attacks are not going away anytime soon. they're going to continue to be a major problem. for our intelligence community to be effective over the long haul, we must maintain the trust of the american people and people around the world. this effort will not be completed overnight.

given the pace of technological change, we should not expect this to be the last time america has this debate. i want the american people to know that the work has begun. over the last six months, we created an outside review group on intelligence and communication technologies to make recommendations. i've listened to privacy advocates and industry leaders. we considered how to approach intelligence in this era of technological revolution. so, before outlining specific changes i've ordered, let me make a few broad observations on this process. first, everyone who has looked at these problems, including skeptics of existing programs,

recognizes that we have real enemies. we cannot prevent terrorist attacks or cyber threats without some capability to penetrate digital communications. whether it is to unravel a terrorist plot, to make sure that air traffic control systems are not compromised, or to ensure that they do not empty your bank accounts. we are required to have capabilities in this field. moreover, we cannot unilaterally disarm our intelligence agencies. there is a reason why blackberries and iphones are not allowed in the white house situation room. we know that the intelligence services of other countries,

including some who feigned surprise over the snowden disclosures, are constantly probing our government to listen to our conversations and view our e-mails and compromise our systems. we know that. meanwhile, a number of countries, including some that loudly criticized the nsa, privately acknowledge that america has unique responsibilities as the world's only superpower. they themselves have relied on information we obtained to protect their own people. second, just as civil libertarians acknowledge the need for robust intelligence capabilities, those with response abilities for national security readily knowledge the potential for abuse as intelligence capabilities advance.

after all, the folks at nsa and other intelligence agencies are our neighbors, our friends, and family. they have electronic banking medical records like everybody else. they have kids on facebook and instagram and know more than most of us the vulnerabilities to privacy that exist in a world where transactions are recorded and e-mails and texts are stored and our movements can increasingly be tracked through the gps on our phones. third, there was a recognition by all who participated in these reviews that the challenges to our privacy do not come from government alone. corporations of all shapes and sizes track what you buy, store and analyze our data, and use it for commercial purposes.

that's what you see those ads pop up on your smart phone. all of us understand that the standards for government surveillance programs must be higher. given the unique power of the state, it is not enough or leaders to say trust us and we will not abuse the data we collect. history has too many examples where the trust has been breached. our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power. it depends on the law to constrain those in power. i make these observations to underscore that the basic values of most americans when it comes to questions of surveillance and privacy converge a lot more than the characterizations that emerged over the last several months. those who were troubled by our existing programs were not interested in repeating the tragedy of 9/11. those who defend these programs

are not interested in civil liberties. the challenge in getting the details right is not simple. over the course of our review, i have reminded myself, i would not be where i am today if it were not for the courage of people like dr. king were spied upon by their own government. as president, a president who looks at intelligence every morning, i can't help but be reminded that america must be vigilant in the face of threats. fortunately, by focusing on facts and specifics, rather than speculation and hypotheticals, this review process has given me and hopefully the american people some clear direction for change. today, i can announce a series of concrete and substantial reforms that my administration intends to adopt administratively or will seek

to create with congress. first, i have approved a new presidential directive for our intelligence communities at home and abroad. this guidance will strengthen executive branch oversight of our intelligence communities. it will ensure that we can taken into account our alliances come our trade and investment relationships come including the concerns of american companies, and our commitment to privacy and basic liberties. we will review decisions about intelligence priorities and sensitive targets on an annual basis of that our actions are regularly scrutinized by our senior national security team. second, we will reform programs and procedures in place to provide greater transparency to our surveillance activities. we will fortify the safeguards that protect the privacy of

u.s. persons. since we began this review including information being released today, we have declassified over 40 opinions and orders of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. including the program targeting foreign individuals overseas and the section 215 telephone metadata program. going forward, i am directing the director of national intelligence and consultation with the attorney general will annually review for the purposes of declassification any future opinions of the court with broad privacy implications. they will report to me and to congress on these efforts. to ensure that the court hears a broader range of privacy perspectives i am also calling on congress to authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside

government to provide an independent voice in significant cases before foreign intelligence surveillance court. third, we will provide additional perfections for activities conducted under section 702, which allows the government to intercept the communication of foreign targets overseas who have information that is important for national security. specifically, i'm asking the attorney general and dni to institute reforms that place additional restrictions on government's ability to retain search, and use in criminal cases, communications between american citizens incidentally collected under section 702. in investigating threats, the fbi also relies on what is called national security letters which requires

companies to supply limited information without disclosing orders to the subject of the investigation. these are cases in which it is important that the subject of the investigation, such as a possible terrorist or spy, is not tipped off. we can and should be more transparent and how government uses this authority. i, therefore, directed the attorney general to amend how we use national security letters so that this secrecy will not be indefinite. so that it will terminate within a fixed time unless the government demonstrates a real need for further secrecy. we will also enable communications providers to make public more information than ever before about the orders they have received to provide data to the government.

this brings me to the program that has generated the most controversy these past months. the bulk collection of telephone records under section 215. let me repeat what i said when this story first broke. this program does not involve the content of phone calls or the names of people making calls. instead, provides a record of phone numbers and the times and length of calls. metadata that can be queried if and when we have a reasonable suspicion that a particular number is linked to a terrorist organization. why is this necessary? the program grew out of the desire to address a gap identified after 9/11. one of the 9/11 hijackers made

a phone call from san diego to a known al qaeda safe house in yemen. nsa saw that call, but did not know it was from an individual already in the united states. the programs maps terrorists so that we can see who they are in touch with. we need to see who they may be in contact with as quickly as possible. this capability can also prove valuable in a crisis. for example, if a bomb goes off in one of our cities and law- enforcement is racing to determine whether a network is poised to conduct additional attacks, time is of the essence. being able to quickly review phone connections to assess whether a network exists is critical for that effort. the program does not involve

the nsa examining the phone records of ordinary americans. rather, it consolidates these records into a database that the government can query if it has a specific reason. a consolidation of phone records that the companies already retain for business purposes. the review group turned up no indication that this database has been intentionally abused. i believe it is important that the capabilities that this program is designed to meet is preserved. having said that, i believe critics are right to point out that without proper safeguards, this type of program could be used to yield more information about our private lives. it could open the door to more intrusive bulk collection programs in the future.

they're also right to point out that although the bulk collection program was subject to oversight by the foreign surveillance court and has been reauthorized by congress, it has never been subject to vigorous public debate. for all these reasons, i believe we need a new approach. i am therefore ordering a transition that will end the section 215 bulk metadata program as it exists and establishes a program without the government holding this bulk metadata. it this will not be simple. the review group recommended that our current approach be replaced by one in which the providers or a third-party retain the bulk records with the government accessing information is needed.

both of these options pose difficult problems. relying solely on the records of multiple providers could force companies to alter their policies. any single company holding the database could carry out what is essentially a government function with more expenses more legal ambiguity potentially less accountability, all of which would have an impact on increasing public confidence that their privacy is being protected. during the review process, some suggested that we may also be able to preserve the capabilities we need through recombination of existing authorities, better information sharing, and recent technological advancements. more work needs to be done to determine how this system will work.

because of the challenges involved, i ordered that the transition away from the existing program will proceed in two steps. we will only pursue phone calls that are two steps away from a known terrorist phone number. the database can be queried only after a judicial finding or in the case of a true emergency. next, step two, i've instructed the intelligence community and the attorney general to use this transition period to develop a new approach without the government holding this metadata itself.

and they will report back to me with options for alternative approaches before the program comes up for reauthorization on march 28. during this time, we will discuss the reauthorization of the program as needed. the reforms should give people greater confidence that their rights are being protected even as law enforcement retains the tools they need to keep us safe. additional issues require further debate. some who participated in our view, as some members of congress would like to see more sweeping reforms. we have to go to a judge each time before these requests.

here i have concerns that we should not set a standard for terrorism investigations that are higher than those involved in investigating and ordinary crime. i agree that greater oversight on the use of these letters may be appropriate and i prefer to work with congress on this issue. there are those who would like to see different changes to the court then i proposed. i'm working with congress to ensure that we build a broad consensus for how to move forward and i'm confident that we can shape an approach that meets our security needs while upholding the civil liberties of every american. let me now turn to the separate set of concerns that have been raised overseas. i will focus on america's approach to intelligence collection abroad. as i've indicated, the united states has unique response

abilities when it comes to intelligence collection. they helped not only our nation, but our friends and our allies as well. our efforts will only be effective if ordinary citizens in other countries have confidence that the united states respects their privacy, too. the leaders of our close friends and allies deserve to know that i want to know what they think about an issue. i will pick up the phone and call them rather than turn to surveillance. just as we balance security and privacy at home, our global leadership demands that we balance our security requirements against our need to maintain the trust and cooperation among people and leaders around the world. for that reason, the new presidential directive that i've issued today will clearly prescribe what we do and do not

do when it comes to our overseas surveillance. to begin with, the directive makes clear that the united states only uses signals intelligence for legitimate national security purposes and not for the purposes of indiscriminately reviewing the e-mails and phone calls of ordinary folks. i've also made it clear that the united states does not collect intelligence to suppress criticism or dissent, nor do we disadvantage people on the basis of ethnicity or race or gender or sexual orientation or religious beliefs. we do not provide advantages to u.s. companies or commercial sectors. in terms of our bulk collection of signal intelligence u.s. intelligence agencies will only use such data to meet specific security requirements. counterintelligence, counterterrorism, counter proliferation, cyber security,

force protection for our troops and our allies, and combating transnational crime, including sanctions in asia. in this directive, i have taken the unprecedented step of expanding certain protections that we have for the american people to people overseas. i have directed the dni to develop the safeguards come which will limit the duration that we can hold personal information while also restricting the use of this information. the bottom line is that people around the world, regardless of their nationality, should know that the united states does not spy on ordinary people who don't threaten our national security. we take their privacy concerns into account in our policies and procedures.

this applies to foreign leaders as well. given the understandable attention of this issue, i've made clear to the intelligence community that unless there is a compelling national security purpose, we will not monitor the communications of heads of state and government of our close friends and allies. i've instructed my national security team come as well as the intelligence community, to work with foreign counterparts to deepen our coronation and cooperation in ways that we build trust going forward. let me be clear -- our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments in the same way that the intelligence services of every other nation does. we will not apologize simply because our services may be more effective. heads of state and government

with whom we work closely should feel confident that we are treating them as real partners. the changes i've ordered do just that. finally, to make sure that we follow through on all these reforms, i am making some important changes to how our government is organized. the state department will designate an officer. we will appoint a senior official at the white house to implement the new privacy safeguards that i've announced today. i will devote the resources to centralize and improve the process we used to handle foreign requests for legal assistance, keeping our high standards of privacy while helping foreign partners fight crime and terrorism. i have also asked my counsel to

lead a conference of review of big data and privacy. this group will consist of government officials who, along with the president's council of advisors on science and technology, will reach out to privacy experts, technologists and business leaders and look at how these challenges are being confronted i both the public and private sectors. whether we can forge international norms on how to manage this data and how we can continue to promote the free flow of information in ways that are consistent with both privacy and security. for ultimately, what is at stake in this debate goes far beyond a few months of headlines or passing foreign policy. when the country hears a noise

what is really at stake is how we remain true to who we are in a world that is remaking itself at dizzying speeds. whether it is the ability of individuals to communicate ideas, to access information or to forge bonds with people on the other side of the globe technology is remaking what is possible for individuals and for institutions and for the international order. so while the reforms i've announced will point us in a new direction, i am mindful that more work will be needed in the future. one thing i'm certain of, this debate will make us stronger. i also know that in this time of change, the united states of america will have to lead. it may see some times that

america is being held to different standards. i will admit, the readiness of some to assume the worst motives of our government can be frustrating. no one expects china to have it openly made about their surveillance programs. or russia to take privacy concerns of citizens in other places into account. let's remember, we are held to a difference entered precisely because we have been at the forefront of defending personal privacy and human dignity. as the nation that developed the internet, the world expects us to ensure that the digital revolution works as a tool for individual empowerment, not government control. having faced down the dangers of fascism and communism, the

world expects us to stand up for the principle that every person has the right to think and form relationships freely because individual freedom is the wellspring of human progress. those values make us who we are. we should not shy away from high expectations. for more than two centuries, our constitution has weathered every type of change because we have been willing to defend it and because we have been willing to question the actions that have been taken in its defense. today is no different. i believe we can meet high expectations. together, let's chart a way forward to preserve the

liberties that make our nation worth fighting for. thank you. god bless you. and may god bless the united states of america. thank you. >> today on crrn span, "washington journal" today with your calls. followed by former commissions chairman. and later, treasury secretary jack lew. >> watch our program on first lady nancy reagan today at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and live monday night our series continues. >> because i know truthfully

that every single problem in america would be better if more people could read, write, and comprehend. i just know that. we would be able to compete with the rest of the world. we wouldn't have these children who are commiting crimes because their families don't have jobs. they don't have jobs because they can't read, they can't write, they don't understand. and i think every thinking american is coming to that conclusion. we have got to educate our children. and we've got to educate their parents. it's not just a whim. it's a necessity. if we're going to compete in this world. >> first lady barbara bush monday night at 9:00 eastern live on c-span and c-span 3. also on c-span radio and c-span.org. >> coming up in just a moment your calls and today's headlines live on "washington

journal." followed by national security writer and author james bamford and his reaction to president obama's speech about changing government surveillance programs. "washington journal" is next. >> i am ordering a transition that will leave the section 215 bulk collection. we will have the november capabilities we need without the government holiness bulk data. host: that was president obama at the justice department yesterday, laying out policy on government surveillance. that is the topic for today's 3m world "washington journal."