is going to look at the data. >> he knows of the consumer is better off after the creation of his agency. our consumer saying that? feeling the consumer protection bureau? do they know it exists? is aso not think there much knowledge about the bureau as they would like. it's certainly recovered a lot of money. those people have seen refunds. not in the public consciousness, the idea that , it is goingully

to take time. you can see that in the complaints. the complaint are going in. they are probably not getting the volume of complaints you would think if everyone was aware that this agency existed. >> this agency works for you. talking aboutim people making a complaint, they will get money back for them. it a case-by-case basis? >> they do what they can. not your lawyer or advocate. if you foul a complaint with them, they forward that to the bank. that can give an extra layer of to resolve the complaint. there are thousands of people that are taking advantage of the opportunity. it may not be something that the public is broadly aware of. >> what about the congress view of this new agency?

>> you see continuing opposition. it will change the bill that will change this from single to a five-member board. it probably will not go anywhere this year. they might have a chance of advancing. the consumerxt for financial protection bureau? they're working on some of these areas like student lending and auto lending. there are areas that caused the crisis in areas they were required to hit by the dodd frank law. now they are working their way down to some of the other areas.

and also trying to fend off toempts from congress constrict the funding. thank you very much for being on "newsmakers." ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] president obama speech from friday proposing changes to the nsa government surveillance program. then mike leigh, al franken, and ted cruz discuss the program during a hearing. then chris christie state of the state address. he testifies on implementing the federal health care law. >> 300 years ago, the first pioneers crossed the oceans to a new world.

a promise of a land will be located built his own house, raise the children in peace. yet in one of the great river valleys, something went wrong. three centuries later, the descendents of the pioneers were a neglected people living in a real and land. hope and the promise were dead for these children. this is one of the early projects. it was in the concept that have under consideration for some years before franklin roosevelt became president. noris was looking to help improve the quality of life in the tennessee river valley to bring flood control two generations. improve the lives of the people who were living here.

there is an attempt to help. week, the literary life of chattanooga tennessee. >> i know that every single problem in america would be better if more people could read, write, and comprehend. i know that. we will be able to compete with the rest of the world. have themot committing crimes. they do not have jobs because they cannot read.

this: doesing to conclusion. you got to educate the parents. >> barbara bush monday night at 9:00. also on c-span radio. on friday, president obama outlined changes to some of the government surveillance programs. collection. data this.o spoke of these are about 45 minutes. [applause] >> 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 warplanes. 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 lock 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 doubt of 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. 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 fort 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. 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 come 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 come 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 the thing that i've learned since indicated that our intelligence nudity 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 duties 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, would 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. 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 that come out has shed more heat, 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 are 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 a bust 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 no 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 her 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 signals 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