>> steve: tomorrow we're making news, find out how you can save hundreds of dollars on your prescription. >> gretchen: all right. have a fantastic day. >> eric: don't forget this one. >> steve: thanks, eric. bill: good morning. fox news alert. something very few people have seen or heard. he leads the nsa, keith alexander set to speak on screen on the record to describe the nsa surveillance program and how vital it has been in breaking up terror attacks on the homeland. president obama defending that program, insisting it's all transparent as the nsa leaker revealing more embarrassing disclosures for the administration. i'm bill hemmer, welcome to a jam packed show. martha: president obama is in

damage control mode on this, meeting with world leaders in northern ireland. here is the president in that under view with charlie rose. >> the way i view it my job is to protect the american people and protect the american way of life which includes our privacy. what i can say unequivocally. if you are a u.s. person, the nsa cannot listen to your telephone calls. and the nsa cannot target your e-mails. >> and have not? >> and have not. they cannot and have not by law and by rule. and unless they -- usually it wouldn't be they, it would be the fbi, go to the court and obtain a warrant and seek probable cause. the same way it's always been.

bill: snowden the man at the center of this doing an online chapter from his hiding place accusing the u.s. of spying on its allies. the president has been under pressure to defend the programs. i guess this is part of it with charlie rose. >> reporter: the president gave a vigorous defense of these surveillance program but dick cheney and others say you have got to be out there more defending the benefits of the program, not just letting the critics define this on privacy ground. that's part of the reason why the president went on charlie rose's pbs show. take a listen to the president's defense. >> my concern has always been not that we shouldn't do intelligence gathering to prevent terrorism. but rather are we setting up a system of checks and balances. on this develop program you have got a federal court with

independent federal judges overseeing the entire program. >> reporter: critics repeatedly said this independent court rarely stops search warrant in terms of going through the records so there have been charges that it's just rubber stamping it and it's not have much overnight at all. >> reporter: an online chat by ed snowden. you wonder where the buy is going to pop up next. but he's trying to shift the blame to the president. >> he's trying to say since president obama is a candidate in freight first talked about transparency and talked about changing a lot of the bush-cheney programs. but instead he expanded the surveillance program. obama's campaign promises and election gave me faith he would lead us for fixing the program. shortly after assuming power he closed the door and deaned and

expanded several abusive programs. inside the white house they would deny the way he's framing this and claims it is not the president's fault that this got leaked. there are people in the white house nervous that snowden could have more sensitive documents. bill: meanwhile he has a google hangout. martha: senator rand paul with more harsh words on the government spy issue. he's been one of the most outspoken critics of this program all along. he was on sean hannity last night and had this to say. >> he's losing his moral authority to lead the nation. people don't like hypocrisy. he said he would protect our privacy. and he appeared to care. and he says he does, but he does

the opposite. then you have the director of intelligence looks straight at a senator and says we are not collecting any data on americans and the truth is they are collecting a billion phone calls every day. martha: senator paul is heading efforts to file a class action lawsuit against the nsa. bill: you have got public opinion seems to be swaying against snowden. a majority of americans believes the government should pursue a criminal case against snowden. 54% say yes. 38% say no, 8% don't know. martha: it's called mehta data. it's data about your data. when it comes to who we speak the lines start to get blurred. the nsa is able to collect the

phone numbers and serial numbers of the phones involved in conversations. they can tell the time you made the caught and the length of the call. if you are using a cell phone, where you were when you made that call through gps tracking. web searches and who you e-mail are also collected but none of the content of those e-mails is being roaded. according to edyard snowden this kind of metadata goes on all day every day except when it comes to finding him. bill: flenty of it can fit into a massive fortified data center in utah. it's five times the size of the capitol building in washington. it can hold a yottabyte of data. it's one septillion or 1,000

years of all internet traffic. martha: the nsa leak is one of the many scandals taking its toll on president obama's popularity. look at these numbers. the president's approval rating fell 8 points in one month. byron york joins me. chief political correspondent for the "washington examiner." right after this happened the talk was he was holding up pretty well. doesn't appear to be that way when you see these numbers. >> you are seeing a delayed reaction to public opinion. it takes a while for news to sink in with the public. a number of people think the irs scandal has been directed by washington has been going up. the original story there were

just a few rogue agents in cincinnati. but now you are seeing a growing number of people who believe it was directed by higher ups in washington and that will bring down the president's ratings. martha: some people have called for the president to come out, wrap his arms around the situation. talk to the american people about it. we did see that maybe that's the format he's turning to to try to turn the tide. will that be enough? >> it depends on the facts of the case. if we find out the nsa has more people under surveillance or is collecting more information than we think. a news report will change public opinion. it takes a while, but it does change the. as far as the irs is concerned. we don't know if it went into the white house. if the facts of the case point towards the white house the president won't be able to spin it in a happy direction. martha: this an rcp average.

the green line is the president's approval and the red is disapproval. you can see that he's under water here for the first time in a very long time. 46.4% approval numbers. if purchase working in the west wing. how are you feeling about those numbers and back to that. what do you do to try to turn the tide? do you try to re rev up the bas? and try to draw attention to somewhere else? >> he's trying that. there hasn't been any good news for the president. not only does bad news push his ratings down. he doesn't have the good news to get supporters excited to push it up. he failed to achieve gun control. he failed to stop sequestration. these are things that disappointed and demoralized those who supported him. that's why he's pushing so hard to hope that immigration reform passes. so far he has had bad news

without any of the good news that night counteract it. bill: those lines cross towards the end of may and they crossed the first week of june when all of this started to hit the fan. we are just getting rolling. this is about as rare as they come. the head of the nsa talking about his agency's surveillance program and how he believes it's kept americans safe. we'll talk to one of the lawmakers taking part and ask them what he wants to hear from general alexander. you will see that coming up live. martha: did attorney general eric holder lie to congress? it's a big issue. new details on what eric holder is saying now and the latest on the possibility of furnlg are you charges. the comairpman of the judiciary committee joins us on that now infamous testimony. >> why was it necessary to subpoena the telephone records. did you seek the ap's assistance in the first place and if not

why not. >> i don't know what happened there with interaction between the ap and the justice department.

martha: a bit of an unexpected catch for a group of fishermen off the coast of florida. they reeled in $2.5 million worth of cocaine. they turned it in to police. they say it likely came from venezuela. several agencies are investigating. bill: attorney general holder facing a question when he's expected to meet with republicans this week. did he lie when it came to snooping on reporters including fox news' james rosen. 42% of americans disapprove of

the job holder is doing. so you are going to get some answers to some questions you wanted a few weeks ago this week. but he will come and sit down and talk to you behind closed doors next week. do you believe he perjured himself when he testified in mid-may? >> that's why we want to get the answers on the record in writing. the first effort he got an underling to and the questions. we said that's not good enough. then he attempted to adopt those answers with a second letter. we said that's non-responsive. now he's agreed to answer a number of questions that we have on the record in writing. and he has agreed to provide full answers. so we'll see. >> speaking of on the record. last night with gretta you said they are either lying to

congress, lying to court or lying to both. do you stand by that now or not? >> we'll find out. here is the concern. the attorney general testified before the committee that with regard to the potential prosecution of reporters that's not something he has been involved with, heard of or thinks is a wise idea. a week after his testimony under oath we learned about the rosen case. a federal judge recognizing this matter had been sealed for three years when it was supposed to have been unsealed 18 months earlier. and apologized for the delay in that unsealed card we found an affidavit for a search warrant where it was alleged the senior corresponds yefnts your news organization is being accused of being a common criminal. the affidavit said there was

probable cause to show he was an aider, abettor or coconspirator of the espionage act. all of that is standard operating procedure to get the warrant to investigate the leaker. bill: you want to figure that out. >> that's either false information to the court or false information to the congress or maybe both. bill: hung on to that point. when asked if he should resign, 52% of americans think he should. i guess he only needs the overt one person and that's the on vote that counts. >> we'll review his answers and be the judge of whether they are whole answers.

bill: it sounds like you can change your mind in the q & a. you are a former immigration attorney. the reporting suggests you will break up immigration reform and run through a series of mini bills to work through graham legislation. if you get your way, what is the first bill you would push for, sir? >> we are not wasting any time on that either. we are going to take up an enforcement provision in the house judiciary committee today. it addresses the interior portion. about 35%, 40% of people who are unlawfully present in the united states entered lawfully on visitors visas, and simply the overstay their visas. the border doesn't solve that problem. it has to be interior

enforcement. bill: more border security. 81% favor that. path to citizenship. but if the house goes you're route does i of -- if the houses your route does it kill what the house has been doing. >> it doesn't kill it. but they give the measures before an enforcement recordkeeping system in place. that's what happened in 1986. they tbeent easy pathway to citizenship for 3 million people, the promise of greater enforcement and that promise has not been kept nearly 30 years later. bill: thanks for coming back. from the hill. thank you. martha: talk about pane awkward picture. -- talk about an awkward

picture. the body language says it all. it felt chilly in there with vladimir putin. russia making it clear they are not ready to force assad to go anywhere. bill: a man loses it during a flight. passengers swing into action. >> they put him on the ground with the help of a few passengers and the flight attendants who were able to handcuff him.

march report justice department release the names and nationality of all of the detainees currently being held at guantanamo bay. this follows a freedom of information request. >> a man lost it on a mane to new jersey. he was ranting about the irs and the cia. he said he feared he would be killed. he said he worked with the u.s. embassy. >> he said he worked for the embassy. and his life was in danger. martha: fellow passengers said the man was clearly unstable. he was tackled by panes jerd and taken away by police. martha: the defense department allowing women to serve on the front lines.

peter doocy is live in washington. does this mean women could become navy seals or army rangers? >> it does. the pentagon will announce their plan to let women begin training to become army rangers and let women start training as navy seals the following march in the first part of 2016. this move wouldn't just must women on the front lines. they would need to meet the same physical and mental requirements as the men they train alongside. female officers may be the first to join the special forces to support younger women who follow them later on. this is a plan leon panetta endorsed before he retired. >> in life there are no guarantees of success. not everyone is going to be able to be a combat soldier.

but everyone is entitled to a chance. >> reporter: the current secretary of defense cluck haimg is telling military leaders to take the next year that would figure out new standards to allow women to become members of the special forces. those people at the pentagon work on new standards mind some new research that suggests the armed forces will be harmed by letting women work as special operators and this plan could go in the recycling bin. but the highest levels of the military want to see if they can make it work. martha: we remember when they said women couldn't kit at annapolis or west point. it could bring changes in the way the military deals with sexual assault. >> reporter: the pentagon has been trying to make it easier to

report sexual assaults after last year's numbers revealed 26,000 sexual assaults. of those confirmed cases, martha, 88% of the victims were women. back to you. bill: here is a high wire act. two teens trapped way up on a mott and a helicopter threading -- way up on a mountain. and a helicopter threading the needle to save them. the head of the nsa will explain how the agency's surveil yns programs he believes stopped terror attacks in america saving countless lives. we might get some of that today when we come back.

martha: we are moment away from a rare public hearing from the head of the nsa. he will reveal 10 top terrorist plots that were thwarted by the surveillance program. 62% of american say this is an invasion of their privacy.

32% say it's acceptable. i want to get one other set much numbers up here. i think they are instrumental in our discussions. how much trust and confidence do you have in the federal government. when you take a look at this, only 5% hav have a great deal of trust in the federal government. then you go down to not that much. 41%. 63% of americans in this poll have very little trust or confidence in the i.s. government. that's shocking, isn't it? >> it's more than shock. it's trouble. given all we have seen at the irs and the benghazi situation and the attacks on media, it's in the surprising. i share that distrust. but i hope this morning general alexander can share with the

american people that these programs are different. and he can talk about all the pro versus that have been put in place to make sure americans understand the scope of the program. i hope he can clear that up and we can get the facts out to the american people. when we do that we can make the case these programs are making sense and are effective. >> across the board, everyone has spoken of general alexander with high regard. most people accept at face value of he has the interest of the country at heart. but is this program effective? i know they are going to share some of the examples of what they call successes of this program. but i'm afraid in many of these cases you would be able to extrapolate other information we

had and say we didn't need that nsa program. we could have gotten spa judge to go further based on what we have built into the system. >> i know we'll ask questions about that. to demonstrate why the scope of these perhaps are necessary and the pact those programs have had. why the methodology chosen to collect the information and the processes and controls put in place to protect that information are appropriate and reasonable and important to keeping our soldiers safe in the war on terror and safe here at home. martha: it seem the examples in afghanistan, and when you look at the boston marathon bombing and the hassan case at fort

hood. how was the privacy of those two terrorists protected under this program to the extent the fbi had no idea who these two young then were. how is it that this large program does not catch these two terrorists in these instances? >> no one is going to defend the fbi's failure to identify these folks sooner. i wish they had. general alexander wishes they had as well. no program is perfect. some of the limit there impact the capacity to determine the full scope of what's going on. but i think those limit are appropriate and general alexander shares those views. but it's frustrating where you have instances where we have failed to identify folks when we are doing all of this work. having said that, i think when

we hear general alexander we'll get an idea about some of the things these programs have provided to our intelligence community that americans can count on. the fact that it kept us safe. martha: i do think that accidents happen and things slip through the cracks. but i think they are examples because you look at it and say if we are tracking everybody, why weren't there pings on the phone numbers based on the fact russia tipped us off to these guys. it might help to see how it failed and really how efficient it is. are we gathering so much information we are not able to do the enforcement and investigative work that logical things would lead to you in some of these cases. >> there is something to that. i would also to the contrary suggest the ability to have that information in a way that many anonymous and protected gives

the intelligence communities the ability to direct the resources to the right places so they can exclude large numbers of contacted very quickly in the aftermath of the boston terror attacks. it's certainly not foolproof. we won't stop every terrorist attack. but we'll see general alexander and his team have a good plan in place. martha: it will be an interesting hearing at 10:00. bill: very interesting. top of the hour. in the meantime there is new controversy over a federal program that's reportedly plagued with fraud and abuse and it's costing taxpayers a whole lot of mannive. the examples of fraud in this federal disability program are egregious. >> this all put together by the washington examiner. let me give you examples of the

fraud we are talking about. a former post pal worker raised her arms high to seal the deal on the price is right. for five years she had been on federal disability. she was unable to stand, sit, reach or grasp. but armed with the video of her being on th the price is right,e feds filed charges and she pled guilty to fraud and is awaiting sentencing. >> some workers can make more take home pay going on to disability than they could if they stayed on the job. >> reporter: there are cases of healthy young federal workers. one ran marathons. another took payment for a neck injury while scuba driving and

going on a ride called free ride. >> i'm outraged that a program that's intended to provide financial, medical and rehabilitation support to injured workers instead is plagued with fraud and abuse. >> reporter: the department of labor told fox nights's strongly committed to program integrity. we disagree with the oig's assessment the rate of fraud in the program is high. that's the latest from the department of labor. bill: it does not require a second opinion. so the employee could pick his or her own doctor. >> reporter: that's right. that's what susan collins said is the central part of this program's flaw. she says an independent medical examiner is needed.

that said, the private sector has its own problems with workers come and disability claims. those claims tripled since the year 1980. the aging of the workforce and the recession explains much of that but so does a wider latitude in depression andxiety. bill: doug mcelway, thanks. >> the white house is saying syria's assad has used chemical weapons and must be stopped. russia says not so fast on the syrian dictator. ambassador john bolton next. bill: the brave officers who put their lives on the line and saved the day with only seconds to spare. >> there is a huge accident. there is an emergency on 22nd street. the guy is on fire.

the guy is getting on fire. we've been bringing people together. today, we'd like people to come together on something that concerns all of us. obesity. and as the nation's leading beverage company, we can play an important role. that includes continually providing more options. giving people easy ways to help make informed choices. and offering portion controlled versions of our most popular drinks. it also means working with our industry to voluntarily change what's offered in schools. but beating obesity will take continued action by all of us, based on one simple common sense fact... all calories count. and if you eat and drink more calories than you burn off, you'll gain weight. that goes for coca-cola, and everything else with calories. finding a solution will take all of us. but at coca-cola, we know when people come together, good things happen. to learn more, visit coke.com/comingtogether

martha: a brave group of police officers risk their lives to free a man trapped inside a burning car. officers arrived and used fire extinguishers to battle the flames while others reached in

to free the driver and they got him out with seconds to spare. >> he released. we yanked him back. we got 10 feet back. we just collapsed about even if feet away and we looked up and as we looked up the entire car was engulfed in flames. >> either that guy was coming out or they were going to burn alive. you think to the man upstairs. can we have a little help. >> we did our jobs today. martha: congratulations to those heroes. those officers are back to work today. bill: breaking news on a major disagreement. russia blasting claims syria's assad is using nuclear weapons. this comes after an icy exchange between president obama and

vladimir putin. both men spent a lot of time staring at the floor. >> we have different perspectives but we share a desire to stop the violence. >> our opinions do not coincide but all of us have the intention to stop the violence in syria. and to solve the situation peace play. bill: ambassador john bolton is with us. former u.s. ambassador to the u.n. it looks like the russians will not agree chemical weapons have been used. the russians will not agree that assad has to be taken out. the only thing you get from this meeting is a possibility talks will take place a month from

now. >> the talks were announced a month ago. so really what happened is putin came in and said the same thing the russians have been saying for two-plus years about syria. we have a different view than the united states, britain and france. now we see it in direct contrast at a high-profile g8 meeting. the russians have different interests at stake in syria. bill: what happens in these meetings when the two leaders of these countries come out and stare at the floor and don't talk to one another in public? why does that happen? >> they had a full and frank exchange. necessity basically told each other to take a hike. this should not have been a surprise to president obama. i think it many an embarrassment to him and by trish prime

minister cameron who wanted to show more progress coming out of the g8. we are right where we have been for two years. one of the reasons the conflict in syria has gone on the way it has. you base your policy as the obama administration did on a fundamental perception. it's no surprise it didn't produce any results. bill: they had a private meeting and a lot of time to share if they chose to. 70% of the american people are against arming the opposition. why did the president the end of last week, why did he put forward this idea the opposition could be given small arms? was that a negotiation ploy? why would that happen? >> i think he sort of backed into it. i think our policy on syria has been badly out of whack with reality in the middle east.

in part it's because the president doesn't want to take on the russians seriously. doesn't want to take on iran. and so overall the policy has been a little bit this way, a little bit that way. now it's finally crashed. that figure of 20% supplying arms very interesting. there is a poll out in the united kingdom that shows 17% supplying the opposition with arms there. the two leaders i think are in a very difficult uncomfortable position. especially now given putin's adamant support for assad. all of this was entirely predictable. bill: what if we did the whole show, you and i. stare at the floor. stare at our legs. martha: i could speak to a translator occasionally.

all right. this is a good story coming up. a heart-stopping rescue 8,500 feet in the air. a helicopter plucks a pair of hikers off a massive cliff in california. bill: new questions about what the white house is doing to keep the administration e-mails private. [ male announcer ] if you suffer from a dry mouth

then you'll know how uncomfortable it can be. [ crickets chirping ] but did you know that the lack of saliva can also lead to tooth decay and bad breath? [ exhales deeply ] [ male announcer ] well there is biotene. specially formulated with moisturizers and lubricants, biotene can provide soothing relief and it helps keep your mouth healthy, too. [ applause ] biotene -- for people who suffer from dry mouth.

bill: a pair of hikers stuck on a cliff 8,500 feet up. it happened in california. one of the hikers talked about the moment when they realized they were going nowhere fast. >> we got to the top and

realized there is a massive like gap -- we realized we are high up and there is no way down. it was terrifying at first just to see -- there is nothing below me. report report they owe those men a big fat thank you. turns out the reason they went off the trail was to find a scenic outlook to take a picture near tahoe, california. martha: i blame instagram for that moment. thousands of protesters flooding the streets of brazil's biggest cities. watch this. that's rio. home of the 2016 olympics.

looks like they are off to a good start. this just a month before a visit from pope frances. maybe he can help calm things down. it's the year before the world cup soccer tournament. what set off all of this? >> reporter: this started out small. just a small town there one a 10 cent hike in the hike after bus ticket. that anger spread through social media across the country. in major cities across brazil you have major protests. the bigger anger is a sense that the nation is trying to show itself on the world stage, spending billions of dollars on stadium ahead of the world cup and the olympics and ordinary people feeling they are not getting enough attention from their own government. martha: how serious is this for these events? >> reporter: 200,000 people

and some real battles with police, using tear gas and at times rubber bullets. but the makeup of the protesters, a lot of middle class, families, anger at the performance of their own government. martha: the building of a mall in a park in turkey. there is a lot of anger out there. bill: the world cup is in a year. moment from now a rare look inside our national security operation. the head of the nsa will reveal terror plots disrupted by the government spying efforts. we'll take you there live with general alex an der. e gulf, bp : help the gulf recover, and learn from what happened so we could be a better, safer energy company. i've been with bp for 24 years. i was part of the team that helped deliver on our commitments to the gulf - and i can tell you, safety is at the heart of everything we do. we've added cutting-edge safety equipment and technology,

like a new deepwater well cap and a state-of-the-art monitoring center, where experts watch over all oudrilling activity, twenty-four-seven. and we're sharing what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. safety is a vital part of bp's commitment to america - and to the nearly 25000 peopleho work withs here. we invest more in the u.s. than anywhere else in the world. over fifty-five billion dollars here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger.

martha: here we go, folks, with this fox news alert. government secrets going on the record this morning. we are now moments away from an open hearing on capitol hill where the head of the national security agency is expected to take his seat momentarily and to explain more about the terrorist attacks that he says this surveillance program have, indeed, thwarted. it's a very important moment here. welcome to a brand new hour of "america's newsroom," i'm martha maccallum. bill: and i'm bill hemmer. the critical witness at that hearing, general keith alexander, very respected man with a lot of credibility. he's expected to reveal a list of at least ten terrorist plans that were prevented by his agency's now-public but still controversial spying program.

martha: a lot riding on this. catherine herridge joins us now live from washington. what are lawmakers saying they expect will be revealed today, catherine? >> reporter: thank you, martha, and good morning. they expect the head of the nsa will make the case that the sweeping collection of phone records, the so-called metadata from millions of americans, is justified and a necessary tool to connect the dots. >> i think it's very important for the general to get out as much of the details as he can without compromising sources or methods. >> i believe that general alexander is going to actually talk about specific cases he mentioned last week that there's dozens. this is one of the most valuable tools we have, and don't forget, the tools are changing so rapidly because this data mining is occurring in every part of the globe. >> reporter: today it's crucial to listen to the language general alexander uses as he describes the role data mining has played disrupting

terrorist plots. critics argue the programs have not led to the primary or initiating leads but with, rather, the nsa programs have backed up that initial lead or intelligence providing secondary information. and that argue that was the case with the new york city subway bomber. they point to the fact that the main tip came from british intelligence that was monitoring a suspicious e-mail account. martha. martha: yeah. and that's the question. was with it absolutely necessary to have this program in order to catch him? and that is what we expect the questions to focus on at least in part today. now, what about the president, catherine? he's also started to speak out about this program. >> reporter: well, he has. in an interview the president made the case that these programs are justified. >> all right? so point number one, if you're a u.s. person, then nsa's not listening to your phone calls, and it's not targeting your e-mails unless it's getting an

individualized court order. that's the existing rule. >> reporter: but there is a second layer of review. this is a sifting of the phone records or searching of the phone records that was first confirmed by the chair of the senate intelligence committee last week, senator dianne feinstein, which does not need a court review or approval. critics of the nsa programs argue that the sifting of these phone records or the mapping of the records reveals an individual's pattern of behavior and their social network, and in some respects it is actually more revealing than getting to the contents of either the e-mails or the phone calls, martha. martha: yeah. that pattern is so significant. catherine, you know, edward snowden speaking out again, and he basically says that he thinks the defense of this program doesn't hold water, that these people -- nast si bull sa si, as an example could have been caught without the breadth of this program and that all of this is really for show because these folks want to keep doing what they're doing. >> reporter: well, putting

edward snowden to one side because i think we can all agree that he comes from a very specific point of view and now has an axe to grind, what i've been paying the most attention to are the comments of congressman james sensenbrenner who drafted what's called section 215 of the patriot act, the so-called business records section, and he feels uncomfortable with the broad way in which that section has now been applied and interpreted. and then critics who have been fully briefed on these programs who sit on the senate intelligence committee, senators udall and wyden, who say that these programs, again, have not led to that sort of primary or critical lead that breaks open an investigation. they've done it in a secondary fashion, and they argue that that kind of information is available through other means that are less impactful on every american citizen, martha. martha: yeah. well, let's hope we get to the heart of that question. very essential in here. catherine, thank you very much. >> reporter: you're welcome. bill: the nsa chief, by the way,

chily decorated -- highly decorated military figure, previously served as deputy chief of staff for the army, and he's also a graduate of the military academy at west point and holds three master's degrees. want to bring in peter brooks, former cia officer, heritage foundation senior fellow, national security affairs. peter, good morning to you. >> good morning. bill: i would imagine his testimony is intended for public consumption as much as it is for these members of the committee. to reassure the american people that we're doing the right thing, and we're doing it to protect you. what do you believe? >> absolutely, bill. i mean, he's really speaking for the president. the president has decided not to take this on in a live fashion. he did that taped interview last night, but they could certainly to this hearing -- do this hearing in closed session, in other words, in a secure facility in the capitol with just the members of the committee. but everybody's going to be watching this today including people around the world. so this is an opportunity for the obama administration to say

why this is an important counterterrorism tool, perhaps provide some examples. but being cautious about not telling too much that will undermine our national security. snowden has already done that for us, and the general certainly doesn't want to do it, and he wants to protect this very important program. bill: listen, this is your career, that's an excellent point, too, former cia guy, how concerned are you that too much can be given up and made public? >> i'm very concerned. but i think we were expecting the general to speak yesterday, and i think they took an extra day to look and scrub these materials that they're going to talk about today. and, of course, he can't necessarily predict what the questions will be. he's going to make his presentation, but the members, i understand, will be able to ask questions. so, yes, intelligence sources and meds, bill, come -- methods, bill, come at great expense to the united states. sometimes there's a personal toll, sometimes there's a financial cost to these programs. spent a lot of time and effort

on developing these things in an effort to keep america safe, so it's a very tough line that this general's going to have to walk today to try to convince the american people who are already skeptical because of the irs scandal and benghazi and the rifling reporters' e-mails about the u.s. government and trying to get them to understand that this program protects their civil liberties, and it's necessary to protect us against the terrorism, the terrorist threat. bill: and, you know, peter, rightfully so there are concerns. >> sure. bill: they don't know what the heck people are doing with information or e-mails or telephone numbers. but you just heard martha and catherine talk about najibullah zazi, he's now in jail for the rest of his life. he admitted to the plans that he had to blow up subway system here in new york city. >> yep. bill: now, we reported earlier that general alexander will talk about maybe ten plots. yesterday we were told it might be as many as 21 plots that had been disrupted.

i mean, the specifics are important because it goes to the credibility. so how far does he go in explaining this? because it appeared yesterday that this involved a lot of countries around the world and folks like general alexander had to talk to those governments to let them know what they were going public with. >> yeah, no, of course. that's very important as well. we heard there may be as many as 20 countries involved here. and another thing that's important to understand, bill, is intelligence also comes from an intelligence fact also comes from a number of different sources. there might be human intelligence involved, there might be signals intelligence involved, there might be other intelligence involved, so they kind of tip each other off. and what you try to do is take this information and corroborate it together to get to where it points you in a direction of where you need to go in terms of intelligence. it's a very difficult process here. so even though catherine pointed out that some of this information that the nsa used was secondary based on other tips, it's still very important in putting together that

intelligence picture that we need. and once again we're talking about a global threat here, involves many countries, countries working together, the united states and britain as they mentioned with the zazi case. so i've heard there may be dozens of cases, and there may be more than 20 countries involved. we won't know until the general tells us that, but very, very important for the american people. bill: peter, i'm seeing a list of four witnesses, i've been told there may be as many as six, we'll see in a moment, but general keith alexander has a long and storied history, and it is very credible with any of the members of the government that we speak to. peter, hang on one moment. this is mike rogers, he heads up the committee, the republican on that committee, let's listen. >> that congress has provided to the executive branch since the terrorist attacks of september 11th, 2001. i'd also like to recognize the hard work of the men and women of the nsa and the rest of the intelligence community who workday in and day out to disrupt threats to our national security. people at the nsa in particular have heard a constant public

drum beat about a laundry list of nefarious things they are alleged to be doing to spy on americans. all of them wrong. the misperceptions have been great. yet they keep their heads down and keep working every day to keep us safe and, general alexander, please convey our thanks to your team for continuing every day despite much misinformation about the quality of their work and thank them from all of us for continuing to work to protect america. i also want to take this moment to thank general alexander who has been extended as national security adviser in one way or another three different times. that's a patriot. this is a very difficult job at a very difficult time in our history, and for the general to accept those extensions of his military service to protect this nation, i think, with all of the, again, misinformation out there, i want to thank you for that. thank you for your patriotism.

thank you for continuing to serve to protect the united states. again, you have that great burden of knowing lots of classified information you cannot talk publicly about. i want you to know thank you on behalf of america for your service to your country. the committee has been extensively briefed on these efforts over a regular basis as part of our overgoing oversight respondent over the 16 elements of the intelligence commitment. and the national intelligence program. in order to fully understand intelligence collection programs, most of these briefings and hearings have taken place in classified settings. nonetheless, the collection efforts under the business records provision in section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act are legal, court-approved and subject to an extensive oversight regime. look forward to hearing from all of the witnesses about the extensive protections and oversight in place for these programs. general alexander, we look forward to hearing what you're able to discuss in an open forum about how the data that you

obtain from providers under court order, especially under the business records provision, is used. and deputy attorney general cole, we look forward to hearing -- martha: that's mike rogers, chairman of the intense committee there in the introduction phase here of keith alexander of the nsa. we're going to get to his testimony. we want to sneak in a quick break first, and we'll be right back with more. >> at the intersection of lik classified intelligence programs and -- it's four times the detail of hd. colors become richer. details become clearer. which for a filmmaker, changes everything. because now there are no more barriers between the world that i see and the ones i can show you. the sony 4k ultra hd tv.

so we're always 100% flake free... ...while smelling 100% handsome. [ josh ] and with a double dose of confidence like that... mmmmmm. [ c.j.] ...good happens. [ sniffs ] ahhh! [ male announcer ] head & shoulders with old spice.

bill: while we were away, mike rogerst on to emphasize how concerned he is that we don't give away methods to terrorists during this hearing. we're about to hear from the critical player as the nsa director general alexander, we'll take you there lye when it -- live when it happens. first, here's martha. martha: as soon as these questions get under way, we're going to go straight back to this. but we want to bring in bob beckel and brad blakeman.

obviously, gentlemen, this is an effort to clarify things with the american people and to get things turned around in part for the administration whose numbers have been slipping lately in the face of all of these scandals. bob, how do you think this is going to work? >> el, first of all, let me say that both brad and i worked in white houses, and we both had top secret clearances, so we don't begin this as political analysts as much as we do from people who have been in the connection. martha: exactly. >> so these methods have been used for, since the 1950s. that is to say, intercepting messages and comparing them in computers to potential enemies and then brought to the attention of appropriate authorities. here is a vast extension of that to include hundreds of millions of people, including most all americans. and the question is, is it really necessary to go through that kind of intercept operation to get to the information they've talked about here that

has resulted in getting 20 or 30 of these things faulted? martha: yeah. i mean, that's one of the big questions that's on my mind this morning, brad, does this work, you know? it's a huge amount of information. and although we're going to hear this morning, apparently, about several instances, ten we're told, that were thwarted thanks to this program, a lot of people have a lot of questions about whether or not it's really necessary at this level and whether or not it's efficient given what happened in boston and at fort hood, for example. >> there's no question about it. and the fact that we were able, as we'll hear in the testimony by the general, about how many attacks were thwarted, isn't it better, martha, for us to prevent harm from happening than merely respond to it when it does? could you imagine what our country would have been like if we did not have the kind of surveillance to be able to stop attacks before they happened? we would be screaming all over the place, why didn't you connect the dots? martha: well, why didn't they connect the dots, brad, in boston -- >> well, we're not perfect. martha: of course we're not

perfect, but my point is are we doing this in the most efficient way possible? >> absolutely. martha: you say why wouldn't we want to, but bob brings up a valid point. the president has told us you're trading off a certain amount of privacy be for protection. now, the question is, is the trade-off working? and i think it's, you know, with all due respect to the amazing people who work in our intelligence services, as both these men have pointed out so far, and let me go to bob on this, with all due respect to what they've dedicated their lives to, it is a valid question, is it not? >> it is a valid de, and i do think the question here is we have had these sources and methods in place and yet there have been -- not just boston or forhood, but also 9/11 where the dots were there. they weren't connected because of some around cay quick device between the fbi and cia. these things that have been thwarted, had we used methods and operations consistent with our abilities prior to 9/11, and

i contend that i'm not sure. so that's why i said ten. i'm not sure that the information gathered in this bulk amount has contributed to connecting the dots in these particular instances. that's what i've got to be convinced of. martha: i'm going to jump in. general alexander speaking now, let's listen. >> of classified information have resulted in considerable debate in the press about these two programs. the debate has been fueled, as you noted, by incomplete and inaccurate information with little context provided on the purpose of these programs, their value to our national security and that of our allies and the protections that are in place to preserve our privacy and civil liberties. today we will provide additional detail and context on these two programs to help inform that debate. these programs were approved by the administration, congress and the courts.

from my perspective, a sound legal process that we all work together as a government to protect our nation and our civil liberties and privacy. ironically, the documents that have been released so far show the rigorous oversight and compliance our government uses to balance security with civil liberties and privacy. let me start by saying that i would much rather be here today debating this point than trying to explain how we failed to prevent another 9/11. it is a testament to the ongoing teamwork of the central intelligence agency, the federal bureau of investigation and the national security agency working with our allies in and industry partners that we have been able to connect the dots and prevent more terrorist attacks. the events of september 11th, 2001, occurred in part because of a failure on the part of our

government to connect those dots. some of those dots were in the united states. the intelligence community was not able to connect those domestic dots, phone calls between operatives in the u.s. and al-qaeda terrorists overseas. following the 9/11 commission which investigated the intelligence community's failure to detect 9/11, congress passed the patriot act. section 215 of that act, as it has been interpreted and applied, helps the government close that gap by enabling the detection of telephone contact between terrorists overseas and operatives within the united states. as director mueller emphasized last week during his testimony to the judiciary committee, if we had had section 215 in place prior to 9/11, we may have known that the 9/11 hijacker, nadr,

was located in san diego and communicating with a known al-qaeda safehouse in yemen. in recent years these programs together with other intelligence have protected the u.s. and our allies from terrorist threats across the globe to include helping prevent the terrorist, the potential terrorist events over 50 times since 9/11. we will actually bring forward to committee tomorrow documents that the interagency has agreed on that, in a classified setting, gives every one of those cases for your review. we'll add two to more today publicly, we'll discuss, but as the chairman noted, if we give all those out, we give all the secrets of how we're tracking down the terrorists as a community, and we can't do that. too much is at risk for us and for our allies. i'll go into greater detail as we go through this testimony this morning.

i believe we have achieved this security and relative safety in a way that does not compromise the privacy and civil liberty of our citizens. we would like to make three fundamental points. first, these programs are critical to the intelligence community's ability to protect our nation and our allies' security. they assist the intelligence community efforts to connect the dots. second, these programs are limited, focused and subject to rigorous oversight. they have distinct purposes and oversight mechanisms. we have rigorous training programs for our ap lists and -- analysts and their supervisors to understand their responsibilities regarding compliance. third, the disciplined operation of these programs protects the privacy and civil liberties of the american people. we will provide important details about each of those. first, i'd ask the deputy

attorney general, jim cole, to discuss the overarching framework of our authority. sir? >> thank you, general. mr. chairman, mr. ranking member, members of the committee, as general alexander said and as the chairman and ranking member have said, all of us in the national security area are constantly trying to balance protecting public safety with protecting people's privacy and civil liberties in this government. and it's a constant job at balancing this. we think we've done this in these instances. there are statutes that are passed by congress. this is not a program that's off the books, that's been hidden away. this is part of what government puts together and discusses, statutes are passed. it is overseen by three branches of our government, the legislature, the judiciary and the executive branch. the process of oversight occurs before, during and after the

processes that we're talking about today. and i want the talk a little bit about how that works, what the legal framework is and what some of the protections are that are put into it. first of all, what we have seen published in the newspaper concerning 215, this is the business records provisions of the patriot act that also modify fisa, you've seen one order in the newspaper that's a couple of pages long that just says under that order we're allowed to acquire metadata, telephone records. that's one of two orders. it's the smallest of the two orders, and the other order which has not been published goes into in great detail what we can do with that metadata, how we can access it, how we can look through it, what we can do with it once we have looked through it and what the conditions are that are placed on us to make sure that we

protect privacy and civil liberties and at the same time protect public safety. let me go through a few of the features of this. first of all, it's metadata. these are phone records. this is just like what you would get in your own phone bill. this is it is the number that was dialed from, the number that was dialed to, the date and the length of time. that's all we get under 215. we do not get the identity of any of the parties to this phone call. with -- we don't get any cell site or location information as to where any of these phones were located, and most importantly -- and you're probably going to hear this about a hundred times today -- we don't get any content under this. we don't listen in on anybody's calls under this program at all. this is under, as i said, section 215 of the patriot act. this has been debated and up for reauthorization and reauthorized twice by the united states congress since its inception in

2006 and in 2011. now, in order -- the way it works is the, there is an application that is made by the fbi under the statute to the fisa court. we call it the fisk. they ask for and receive permission from the fisk under this to get records that are relevant to a national security investigation. and they must demonstrate to the fisk that it will be operated under the guidelines that are set forth by the attorney general under executive order 12333. this is what covers intelligence gathering in the federal government. it is limited to tangible objects. now, what does that mean? these are like records like the metadata, the phone records i've been with describing. but it is quite explicitly limited to things that you could get with a grand jury subpoena. those kinds of records. now, it's important to know

prosecutors issue grand jury subpoenas all the time and do not need any involvement of a court or anybody else really to do so. under this program we need to get permission from the court to issue this ahead of time, so there is court involvement with the issuance of these orders which is different from a grand jury subpoena. but the type of records just documents, business record, things like that, are limited to those same types of records that we could get through a grand jury subpoena. now, the orders that we get last 90 days. so we have to reup and renew these orders every 90 day cans in order to do this. -- every 90 days in order to do this. now, there are strict controls over what we can do under the order and, again, that's the bigger, thicker order that hasn't been published. there's restrictions on who can access it in this order.

it is stored in repositories at n is sa that can only -- nsa that can only be accessed by a limited number of people, and the people who are allowed to access it have to have special and rigorous training about the standards under which that they can access it. in order to access it, there needs to be a finding that there is reasonable suspicion that you can articulate, that you can put into words that the person whose phone records you want to query is involved with some sort of terrorist organizations. and they are defined. it's not everyone. they are limited in the statute. so there has to be independent evidence aside from these phone records that the person you're targeting is involved with a terrorist organization. if that person is a united states person, a citizen or a lawful permanent resident, you have to have something more than just their own speeches, their own readings, their own first

amendment type activity. you have to have additional evidence beyond that that indicates that there is reasonable, articulable suspicion that these people are associated with specific terrorist organizations. now, one of the things to keep in mind is under the law the fourth amendment does not apply to these records. there was a case quite a number of years ago by the supreme court that indicated that toll records, phone records like this that don't include any content, are not covered by the fourth amendment because people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in who they called and when they called. that's something you show to the phone company, that's something you show to many, many people within the phone company on a regular basis. once those records are accessed under this process and reasonable, articulable suspicion is found, that's found by specially-trained people.

it is reviewed by their supervisors, it is documented in writing ahead of time so that somebody can take a look at it. any of the accessing that is done is done in an audit bl fashion. there is a trail of it. so both the decision and the facts that support the accessing and the query is documented, the amount that was done, what was done, all of that is documented and reviewed and audited on a fairly regular basis. bill: we're going to stay with this hearing. we do have to get a couple commercial breaks in here, but major headlines already. general alexander said the documents released by way of edward snowden show and prove the rigorous oversight that's in place already. that's what he's arguing. he also says i'd much rather be here debating this point rather than trying to explain how we failed to stop a second 9/11. had they had this program, he now argues, they may have located and tracked down one of the hijackers who was in communication in san diego prior

to 9/11. two more quick points. he would talk about two specific terrorist cases in this hearing today, and he also says since 9/11 they have prevented 50 terrorist attacks from taking place. back in a moment after this. >> gets targeted because there's a mistake in the -- the great outdoors, and a great deal.

grrrr ahhh let's leave the deals to hotels.com. perfect! yep, and no angry bears. up to 30% off. only at hotels.com.

martha: all right. we are back at the hearing. this is deputy attorney general james cole as he lays out the argument and the background on the very broad surveillance plan that was unveiled by a leaker or a whistleblower, whatever you

think he is, edward snowden. let's go back and listen. >> what you couldn't do directly. >> that is explicitly prohibited by this statute. and if there is ever any indication that it's being done because, again, we report the use that we make of this statute to the court and to the congress, that is seen. you also have to have a valid foreign intelligent purpose in order to do any of the targeting on this. so you have to make sure, as it was described, that it's being done for defined categories of weapons of mass destruction, foreign intelligence, things of that nature. these are all done pursuant to an application that is made by the attorney general and the director of national intelligence to the fisk. the fisk gives a certificate that allows this targeting to be done for a year period. it then has to be renewed at the end of that year in order for it to be reuped.

now, there's also a requirement that, again, there is reporting. you cannot under the terms of this statute have and collect any information on conversations that are wholly within the united states. so you're targeting someone outside the united states. if they make a call to inside the united states, that can be collected. but it's only because the target of that call outside the united states initiated that call and went there. if the calls are wholly within the united states, we cannot collect them. if you're targeting a person who is outside of the united states and you find that they come into the united states, we have to stop the targeting right away. and if there's any lag and we find out that we collected information because we weren't aware that they were in the united states, we have to take that information, purge it from the systems and not use it. now, there's a great deal of

minimization procedures that are involved here, particularly concerning any of the acquisition of information that deals or comes from u.s. persons. as i said, only targeting people outside the united states who are not u.s. persons. but if we do acquire any information that relates to a u.s. person, under limited criteria only can we keep it. if it has to do with foreign intelligence in that conversation or understanding for intelligence or evidence of a crime or a threat of serious bodily injury, we can respond to that. other than that we have to get rid of it, we have to purge it, and we can't use it. if we inadvertently acquire any of it without meaning to, again, once that's discovered, we have to get rid of it, we have to purge it. the targeting decisions that are done are, again, documented ahead of time, reviewed by a

supervisor before they're ever allowed to take mace in the beginning. -- take place in the beginning. the department of justice and the office of the director of national intelligence conduct on-site reviews of each targeting that is done. they look at them to determine and go through the audit to determine that they were done properly. this is done at least every 60 days and many times done more frequently than that. in addition, if there's any compliance issue, it is immediately reported to the fisk. the fisk, again, pushes back. how did this happen? what are the procedures? what are the mechanisms you're using to fix this? what have you done to remedy it if you acquired information you should have, have you gotten rid of it as you're required? and in addition, we're providing congress with all of that information if we have compliance problems. we also report quarterly to the fisk concerning the compliance issues that have arisen during that quarter on top of the

immediate reports and what we've done to fix it and remedy the ones that we reported. we also to congress under this program, the department of justice and the office of the director of national intelligence provide a semiannual report to the fisk and to congress assessing all of our compliance with the targeting and minimization procedures that are contained in the court order. bill: kind of information so many americans have been asking for for the past week now, ten days since this nsa story broke. we will not leave this hearing, but we do have to take a commercial. our apologies on that. more of this hearing in two minutes here on "america's newsroom." >> any significant legal interpretation -- me of style and sophistication. but to us, less isn't more. more is more. abundant space, available leading-edge technology, impeccable design, and more than you've come to expect

from a luxury vehicle. the lexus es350 and epa-estimated 40 mpg es hybrid. this is the pursuit of perfection. has oats that can help lower cholesterol? and it tastes good?

sure does! wow. it's the honey, it makes it taste so... well, would you look at the time... what's the rush? be happy. be healthy. what's the rush? can youlyric can.aid do this? lyric can. lyric can. lyric by phonak is the world's only 24/7, 100% invisible hearing device. it's tiny. but that might be the least revolutionary thing about lyric. lyric can be worn 24/7 for up to four months, without battery changes. call 1-800-411-7040 for a risk-free trial. cookie: there's absolutely no way anyone can see it even if they get right up to my ear. michael: wake up, go to sleep...showering, running, all your activities. lyric can also give you exceptionally clear, natural sound in quiet and noisy environments because of how it works with your ear's own anatomy. can your hearing aid do all this? lyric can. to learn more about lyric's advanced technology, call 1-800-411-7040 or visit trylyric.com

for a risk-free 30 day trial offer and free dvd and brochure. get the hearing aid that can. lyric from phonak. lyric can.

bill: during that commercial general alexander just revealed one to have major headlines of this hearing. he said that since 9/11 when this program was initiated, more than 50 terrorist attacks have been stopped in more than 20 countries worldwide. peter brooks is with me also, former cia officer. peter, what do you think the headline is other than that one? 50 terror attacks -- >> well, i mean, i certainly -- yeah, i mean, it's certainly very important. you know, 20 countries, a global threat, you know, 50 attacks. i mean, we here have said there have been 50 islamist plots against the united states since 9/11 and a couple of those have been, obviously, successful. i think they did a good job of laying out the case why this is an important counterterrorism program, how people's records and information is accessed, how

they do their best to protect that information and safeguard our civil liberties which is, obviously, a critical issue here. but i feel very comfortable with what they've said, what they've said so far and, hopefully, the american people will see it the same way. martha: peter, it's martha. that last phrase, hopefully, the american people will see it the same way, is the operative one. when you look at the polls, 62% of americans are lacking in terms of the trust and credibility that they have in the u.s. government, and we look at all of the things that have been in the mix, the irs issue -- doctor yeah. martha: -- the, you know, listening in and spying on, snooping on reporters issue, and then you have, and then you have this in terms of the nsa. and in the larger picture, that's what makes it tough to trust. and that's what they're asking us to do here. >> sure, sure. right. and, i mean, in fairness, the hearing's not over yet. of course, we have a lot of incomplete information that was put out there by snowden -- martha: peter, i'm sorry for one

second. i understand they are talking about the specific -- let's listen to this. >> the fbi disrupted and arrested these individuals. also david headley, u.s. citizen living in the chicago, the fbi received intelligence regarding his possible involvement in the 2008 mumbai attacks responsible for the killing of over 160 people. also nsa, through 702 coverage of an al-qaeda-affiliated terrorist, found that headily was working on --headley was working on a plot on a danish newspaper office that had published cartoons of the prophet muhammad. in fact, he later confessed to personally conducting surveillance of the danish newspaper office. he and his co-conspirators were convicted of this plot. lastly, the fbi had opened an

investigation shortly after 9/11. we did not have enough information, nor did we fine links to terrorism, so we shortly thereafter closed the investigation. however, the nsa using the business record fisa tipped us off that this individual had indirect contacts with a known terrorist overseas. we were able to reopen this investigation, identify additional individuals through the legal process and were able to disrupt this terrorist activity. thank you. back to you, general. >> so that's four cases total that we've put out publicly. um, what we're in the process of doing with the interagency is looking at over 50 cases that are classified and will remain classified that will be brought to both the intel committees of the senate and the house, to all of you. those 50 cases right now have been looked at by the fbi, cia and other partners within the community and the national counterterror arism center is

validating all the points so that you know what we've put in there is exactly right. i believe the numbers from those cases are 134-g that we can publicly reveal and all publicly talk about. what we are concerned, as the chairman said, is going into more detail on how we stop some of these cases as we are concerned it will give our adversaries a way to work around those and attack us or our allies. and that would be unacceptable. i have concerns that the intentional and irresponsible release of information about these classified programs will have a long ander reversible impact on our nation's security and on that of our allies. this is significant. i want to emphasize that the foreign intelligence is the best best -- the foreign intelligence programs that we're talking about is the best counterterrorism tools that we have to go after these guys. we can't lose those capabilities. one of the issues that has

repeatedly come up, well, how do you then protect civil liberties and privacy? where's the oversight? what are you doing on that? we have the deputy director of the national security agency who will now talk about that and give you some specifics about what we do and how we do it with these programs. >> thank you, general alexander. chairman, ranking member, members of the committee, i'm pleased to be able to briefly describe the two programs as used by the national security agency with a specific focus on the internal controls and the oversight provided. first, to remind these two complementary but distinct programs are focused on foreign intelligence. that's nsa's charge. the first program executed under section 215 of the patriot act authorizes the collection of telephone metadata only. as you've heard before, the metadata is only the telephone numbers and contact, the time and date of the call and the duration of that call. this authority does not, therefore, allow the government to listen in on anyone's telephone call, even that of a

terrorist. the information acquired under the court order from the telecommunications providers does not contain the content of any communications, what you're saying during the course of the conversation, the identities of the people that are talking or any cell phone locational information. as you also know, this program was specifically developed to allow the u.s. government to detect communications between terrorists operating outside the u.s. who are themselves communicating with potential operatives inside the u.s., a gap highlighted by the attacks of 9/11. the controls on the use of this data at nsa are specific, rigorous and designed to insure focus on counterterrorism. to that end, the metadata acquired and stored may be queried only when there is a reasonable suspicion based on specific and documented facts that an identifier, like a telephone number, is associated with specific foreign trossist organizations. -- terrorist organizations. this is formally referred to as the reasonable, articulable

suspicion standard. during the 12 months of 2012, we at nsa approved fewer than 300 unique numbers which were then used to initiate a query of this data set. the second program authorized under section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act authorizes targeting only for communications of foreigners who are themselves not within the united states for foreign intelligence purposes with the compelled assistance of an electronic communications service provider. as i noted earlier, nsa being a foreign intelligence agency, foreign intelligence for us is information related to the capabilities, intentions or activities of foreign governments, foreign organizations, foreign persons or international terrorists. let me be very clear, section 702 cannot be and is not used to intentionally target any u.s. citizen or any u.s. person, any person known to be in the united states, a person outside the united states if the purpose is to acquire information from a person inside the united states. we may not do any of those

things using this authority. the program is also key in our counterterrorism efforts, as you've heard. more than 90% of the information used to support the 50 disruptions mentioned earlier was gained from this particular authority. again, if you want to target the content of a u.s. person anywhere in the world, you cannot use this authority. you must get a specific court warrant. i would like to now describe in further detail some of the rigorous oversight for each of these programs. first, for the section 215 program also referred to as the business records fisa, controls that determine how we manage and use the data are explicitly defined and formally approved by the foreign intelligence surveillance court. first, the metadata is segregated from other data sets held by nsa, and all queries against the database are documented and audited. as defined in the orders of the court, only 20 analysts at nsa and their two managers for a total of 22 people are authorized to approve numbers. all of those individuals must be

trained in the specific procedures and standards that pertain to the determination of what is meant by reasonable, articulable suspicion. every 30 days nsa reports to the court the number of disseminations made during that period. every 90 days the department of justice samples all queries made across the period and explicitly reviews the basis for every u.s. person or every u.s. identity query made. again, we do not know the names of the springs of the queries -- the individuals of the queries we might make. bill: this is the first time we've ever heard it, frankly, saying only phone numbers, no names. like a phone bill you get at home from verizon or at&t. again, we have to take commercial breaks. going to do that right now, but also general alexander talked about the leaks from snowden. he mentioned the possibility of the long and irreversible impact because of it, arguing that we cannot lose these capabilities. we'll see what happens next after a two minute break. >> must be destroyed within five

years of -- a signature asked everybody what upgraded experiences really mattered... you suggested luxury car service instd of "strength training with patrick willis." come on todd! flap them chicken wings. [ grunts ] well, i travel a lot and umm... [ male announcer ] at visa signature, every upgradedxperience comes from listening to our cardholders. visa signature. your idea of what a card should be.

bill: as the hearing continues, shaun joyce, the deputy director of the fbi, he detailed the terror plots that were stopped because of this program. >> nsa and the fbi have a unique relationshi relation relationship and one invaluable since 9/11. i want to highlight a couple of the instances. in the fall of 2009 nsa using

702 authority inch septembered an email tr a terrorist located in pakistan. the individual was talking with the individual located inside the united states, talking about perfecting a recipe for explosives. through legal process that individual was identified as nazi bolazazi. he was followed to new york city. we executed search warrants with the new york terrorism task force and nypd and found bomb-making components and backpacks. he later confessed to a plot to bomb the new york subway system with backpacks. working with fisa business records the nsa was able to provide a number of a terrorist. this was the first core al-qaida plot since 9/11 directed from

pakistan. another example, nsa utilizing 702 authority was monitoring a known extremist in yemen. this individual was in con ta*bgt with an sreuld in th contact with an individual in the united states. this individual in the united states and other individuals through a fisa that the fbi applied for through the fist being were able to detect a plot to bomb the new york stock exchange. he had been providing information and support to this plot. the fbi disrupted and arrested these individuals. also, david headly -- martha: some of these are new examples. others westbounothers will be picked apart and they say there is enough information to get a warrant from a judge.

bill: more than 50 terrorist attacks and 20 countries have been stopped because of this nsa program. this is the first window the american public has had to look in and see how it operates. martha: more coming up on "happening now." see you back here tomorrow. thanks, everybody. jon: "happening now" begins with a fox news alert as the man overseeing our nation's top secret surveillance programs takes center stage on capitol hill. good morning i'm jon scott. jenna: i'm jenna lee. we are getting a rare glimpse into one of the most secret agencies in the federal government. let's go back to the hearing, we believe the question-and-answer period is about to get started. we've heard a lot from government officials, details we've never heard before. >> it doesn't require individualized warrants. exactly the opposite is the case. the kind of connection done under section 702 i with is collecting foreign intelligence information from foreigners outside of the united states historically was done by the executive branch under