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 its own

authority without any kind of supervision whatsoever. and as a result of the fisa amendments act this has been brought under a judicial process with the kinds of restrictions and limitations described by the other witnesses here. this is a tightening of standards from what they were before. the second misconception is the fisa court is a rubber stamp for the executive branch. and people point to the fact thats fisa ultimately approves almost every application that the government submits to it. this does not recognize the actual process that we go through with the fisa court. the fisa is federal district judges appointed from around the country who take this on in addition to their other burdens. they are all widely and respected experienced judges. they have a full time professional staff that works only on fisa fathers. matters. when we prepare an application for fisa whether it's under one

of these programs or a traditional fisa we submit to the court what is called a read copy, which the koerpl court staff will review and comment on and they will almost invariably come back with questions, concerns, problems they see and there is a process back and forth between the government and the fisa court to take care of those concerns. so that at the end of the day we are confident that we are presenting something that the fisa court will approve. that is hardly a rubber stamp. it's rather extensive and serious judicial oversight of this process. the third point -- the third misconception that i want to make is that the process we have here is one that simply relies on trust for individual analysts or individual people at nsa to obey the rules. and i won't go into detail as to the oversight, because i think it's been adequately described by the others, but the point is, there is a multilayered level of

oversight, first within nsa, then involving my agency, the office of the director of national intelligence and the department of justice and ultimately involving the fisa court and the congress, to insure that these rules are complied with. and the last point that i -- the last misconception i want to address is that this information shouldn't have been classified and it was classified only to conceal it from the american people, and that the leaks of this information are not damaging. and mr. chairman and mr. ranking member you both made this point. these are as general alexander said, extremely important collection programs to protect us not only from terrorists but from other threats 0 our national security, a wide variety. they have produced a huge amount of valuable intelligence over the years. we are now faced with a situation that because this information has been made public, we run the risk of losing these collection capabilities. we are not going to know for many months whether these leaks

in fact have caused us to lose these capabilities. if they do have that effect there is no doubt that they will cause our national security to be effected. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you all very much. i appreciate that. i have a couple of quick questions. members have lots of questions here and i want to get to them. just for the record, mr. english can you describe quickly your civilian role, you served in that role as a civilian capacity is that correct. >> questions yes, sir, across the history of the nsa there has been a military officer, the direct he shall, and the civilian authority which would be the deputy director, that is my role. >> you also have military service is that correct. >> i served for a period of 13 years on active duty in the united states air force and then transitioned to the national security agency. >> so you rose to the rank of -- >> i was bringing georgia dear general in the air national guard.

in awful things it's complicated. >> i just wanted to get on the record you have military service as well as your civilian service. >> i do, sir. i transitioned from the active air force to the national security agency, i retained my affiliation with the reserve components and was phraoelsed anpleased and proud to be able to serve in the air nation malguard for 20 years. >> thank you for the service. in each of the cases there was a determination made by an analystwadinsa that there was a reasonable, describable, articulable suspicion that a number of interests, a telephone number of interest might be associated with a collected plot, a specific terrorist plot overseas and therefore a desires to see if that plot had a connection into the united states. the process they go through then his as described, one where they make a -- >> it's not -- you don't put in a name? we do not, sir. the only thing we get from the providers are numbers. the only thing that we could

possibly then bounce against that data set are numbers themes. >> there are no names and no addresses affiliated with these phone numbers. >> are there are not, seurb. >> sir. >> just phone numbers. >> twhasee righthat's right. an analyst will determine whether there is a describable documentation, must be written, that there is a suspicion that this is connect towed a terrorist plot and there is a us nexus. they would make a further check to determine whether it is possible to discern that this might be a soerb kwraeuflted witassociated with the u.s. person. the may you may infer that is you look at the area code and that could likely be in the united states. if you see an area code that begins with 301 that would be maryland, that would be your only insight as to whether or not it would be attributable to a u.s. person. of if that would be the case the case for reasonable articulable suspicion must get a further

review to make sure it is not a situation where a person is expressing their first afpld the rights. if they are merelif it gets through the checks then at that point it must be approved by one of the 20-us two individuals. 20 analysts or their two manages such that it might then be applied as a query against the data set, again the query itself would just be a number and the query against the data set would then determine whether that number exists in the database. that's how that query is formed again last year. >> the response is not a name, or an address it's a phone number. >> it cannot be. if it were to be a name or an address there would be no possibility that the database would return any meaningful results since none of that information is in the database. >> just the phone number pops back up. >> just the phone number. what comes back if you query the database is phone numbers that were in contact if there are any with that number and again the other information in that database would indicate when the call occurred and what the

duration of the call were to be. >> again i just want to make very clear there are no names and no addresses in that database. martha: that's a a really important point according to congressman rogers and the members of the panel when they are looking for information they are not getting names and addresses, they are getting phone numbers, and there's been a big question about what exactly is the data that the government has access to. it's a big question we'll continue to ask as we continue to watch this hearing. we'll just take a break for it for a moment. standing by with us is senator marco rubio, a florida republican a member of the intelligence committee. nice to have you back on the program. as we are watching the news break and develop i'm just in a bit of a pause about what this really is about. this hearing is essentially about why we should trust the government with this sort of power. how would you answer that question? >> well it's difficult. on the one hand it's the -- national security is probably the number one obligation of the federal government.

let's say hypothetically osama bin laden had been making phone calls into some state in the united states i think all americans would want to know about it and primarily want to know who it is he's talking to because we are sure he's not conducting strock transactions. on the other hand people are concerned, this new information that the government collects metta data, which is meaningful stuff, it tells you the position of that person, what floor in a pulling they are. there is concern about that too. how do you balance those two things? it's difficult. there are safeguard built into the program. the more we know about that the more of those safeguards are declassified in a way that doesn't undermine the program the better americans may feel about it. ultimately we still have this vehiclessing challenge about balancing our needs to provide for our national security with real concerns that americans have about their privacy and for these programs to be abused in the person by some unsoup lust government employee or somebody for a political purpose. jenna: we don't know what it looks like in the future.

that is one of the concerns of our viewers. the man on your screen general alexander said because of the information we have we could better connect the dots. you mentioned osama bin laden. the point they are making is if they had this sort of oversight that 9/11 may be would not have happened. it's tough to look become on that time period, but that is what they are saying. the question is, though, is this the way, senator, where terrorists essentially have already won? because we're sacrificing so much of our civil liberties because we are living in fear of another terrorist attack. >> well if you look at airports we're reminded of that every day. look at what all of us have to go through, law abiding people that would never do anything to harm americans for anyone for that matter. what we all have to go through just to be able to catch the one person who might do something horrible on an airplane or to an airplane or to americans on the ground. in essence, yeah that is a very tough part of what we are facing today. it's a reminder that this is ha war on terrorism, an ongoing

conflict with a dedicated group of radical individuals who are intent on striking the united states, on killing americans and upon hitting us here. how can we do that in a way that doesn't inconvenience or in this case threaten the privacy rights of individual americans? it's a very difficult balance to strike. jenna: the president says that war on terror must end. >> the president is wrong. the war on terror must end but it must end on our terms with victory. it mus defeating radical islam as a political thought and movement around the world by convincing people that they shouldn't join up with radical islam, not only is it wrong but it can't possibly win. if you start pretending that the war is over it doesn't mean it's going to end. just because we ignore terrorists doesn't mean they will ignore us. just because the president hopes the war is over doesn't mean islamic radicalists will go into another occupation. jenna: we got off topic. but this is the big news. i wanted to touch on a bit of

the cross over between some of the immigration debate and what we are talking about now with the surveillance program. there have been questions raised over the last weekend or so about the immigration bill and issues of privacy and concerns from some of your colleagues that the expansion of a e~verify system that exists in the immigration bill right now that is working its way in the senate is an intrusion on privacy and is in fact the way for the federal government to create a national id database. what is the truth on that, senator marco rubio? >> that is not the intent of it and that's not the way it should be used and we should prevent it and prohibit it for being used for that purpose. i would remind however that many of the opponents of the bill are people that have been file e~verify bills or supporting it for a longtime. we understand that the driver of illegal immigration are jobs available in the united state. the only way up you'll cut that off successfully, the only way you're going to cut that off successfully is by having a way for employers and requiring in a

cost effective way to verify that the person that they are hiring is legally here. if you don't do that, if we don't have a way of doing that you'll have that magnet for illegal immigration still there. jenna: will you sponsor an amendment to the bill that will better protect against it becoming a national database? >> i think there is an amendment filed already that actually would prohibit, make it wrong for them to do that not just say this is not the purpose of it, that is the way the bill reads right now. i think that could go even further and say you're prohibited from using this for other purposes. we have laws like that in place now for other databases. we have to have some sort of e~verify system and it has to be effective. we have to be able to say that it will be difficult if not impossible for illegal immigrants to come into the united states and find a job. if that is not in place you'll continue to have illegal immigration. jenna: the other side of the argument is we have millions of people in the country right now and we don't know who they are. >> we don't. jenna: we have to leave it there senator rubio. we appreciate your flexibility talking about some of the big news of the tkhaeu an the day

and we look forward to talking to you today. thank you. >> thank you. jon: fascinating testimony underway right now 0 i. it's on "fox news live" if you want to watch it without interruption.

jon: fox news alert. back now to the house intelligence committee which is holding one of the more anticipated hearings on capitol hill this year all about the nsa data collection program. congressman mcthorn berry in the middle of his questioning now. >> 702 authority identified an extremist located in yemen. this extremist located in yemen was talking with an individual locate located inside the united states in kansas city, missouri. that individual was identified. the fbi immediately served legal process to fully identify the man. we went up on electronic

surveillance and identified his coconspirators. and this was the plot that was in the very initial stages of plotting to bomb the new york stock exchange. we were able to disrupt the plot, we were able to lure some individuals to the united states and we were able to effect their arrest and they were convicted for this terrorist activity. >> on that plot it was under the 702 which is targeted against foreigners that some communication from this person in yemen back to the united states was picked up and then they turned it over to you at the fbi to serve legal process on this person in the united states? >> that is absolutely correct. if p you recall under 702 it has to be a nonu.s. person outside the united states, and then all one of the criteria is linked to terrorism. >> would you say that this -- their intention to blow up the

new york stock exchange was a serious plot? or is this something that they kind of dreamed about, you know, talking among their buddies? >> i think the jury considered it serious since they were all convicted. >> okay. and what about the other plot, october 2007 that started i think with a 215? >> i refer to that plot, it was a investigation after 9/11 that the fbi conducted. we conducted that investigation and did not find any connection to terrorist activity. several years later under the 215 business record provision the nsa provided us a telephone number only in san diego that had indirect contact with an exextremist oulgs th outside of the united states. see served legal process to identify who was the subscriber

to this telephone number. we identified the individual, we were under further investigation and electronic surveillance that we applied to specifically at the fisa court, we were able to identify coconspirators and disrupt the terrorist activity. >> i'm sorry, repeat for me again what they were mothing to do? >> it was actually he was providing financial support to an oversees terrorist group that was a designated terrorist group by the united states. >> there was some connection to suicide bombings they were talking about, correct? >> if not in the example that i'm citing right here. >> i'm sorry, the group in somalia to which he was financing, that's what they do do in somalia, correct? >> that is correct. as you know as part of our classified hearings regarding the american presence in that area of the world.

>> okay. thank you. >> if i could, congressman, just hit a couple of key points. it's over 50 cases, and the reason i'm not giving you specific numbers, we want the rest of the community to actually beef those up and make sure that everything we have there is exactly right. i'd give you the number 50x but if somebody says well not this one actually what we're finding out is there are more, they say you missed three or four so those are being added to the packet. on the top of the packet we'll have a summary analysing of those. i believe those numbers are things that we can make public that you can use that we can use. and we'll try to give you the numbers that apply to europe as well, as well as those that had a nextess in the united states. the issue -- jon: fascinating testimony from general keith alexander the head of the nsa about the revelations that came out from a leaker just, well a couple of weeks ago now, talking about the fact that the nsa has been collecting data on millions of us americans. how do they use it?

that's what we are finding out now. we have these hearings for you streaming live on fox news.com if you'd like to watch them without commercial interruption. back with more in just a moment. 0. >> thank you very much for being here and for your testimony. this man is about to be the millionth customer. would you mind if i go ahead of you? instead we had someone go ahead of him and win fiy thousand dollars. congratulations you are our one millionth customer. nobody likes to miss out. that's why ally treats all their customers the same. whether you're the first or the millionth. if your bank doesn't think you're special anymore, you need an ally. ally bank. your money needs an ally. every day we're working to and to keep our commitments. and we've made a big commitment to america. bp supports nearly 250,000 jobs here. through all of our energy operations, we invest more in the u.s. than any other place in the world.

in fact, we've invested over $55 billion here in the last five years - making bp america's largest energy investor. our commitment has never been stronger.

jon: again edward snowden really launched this hearing. this is the head of the nsa appearing in front of the house intelligence committee. edward snowden a 29-year-old analyst spilled some secrets. now government agencies are having to explain to the american people what is going on, and some interesting comments coming out now about what snowden, the person we believe to be snowden said on his online chat yesterday. >> will a threat to a u.s. member of congress. we are not allowed to say the

name unless it's valuable to one of the investigations. we can't just put out names and stuff in our things. part of the minimum sayings procedures protects the who. >> your status as u.s. persons give you a special status as we've described throughout this hearing. if that does surface and you figure that out you'll get that information to us? also the president kind of suggested, i guess, in his television interview the other night that the new york subway bomber could not have been or would not have been caught without prism. is that true? jon: once again if p you'd like to watch the hearings without interruption we have them streaming for you live on foxnews.com. let's talk about what is going on here with nina easton a senior editor and columnist for fortune magazine, also a fox news contributor. give us your assessment, how is the is i nsa holding up here?

>> i think this is a profoundly important conversation to be having, profoundly. you go back to 9/11 and there was a sense that another shoe was going to drop at any minute, that there was going to be another serious terrorist attack at any time. we forget those fears, and i think since then a lot of people in this country have taken for granted the fact that there have been, until the boston marathon bombing, and of course there was the fort hood shooting, but generally until the boston marathon bombing we seemed to be safe. and you know it's not luck. and i think what we're seeing here are top intelligence officials pulling back the curtain on what is helping to keep us safe. 50 terrorist attacks have been thwarted because of this program, or more to the point the leads provided by this program. specifically a call between

denver and a pakistani terrorist group in -- a few years back led to the thwarting of a bombing attack on the new york subway system, which would have involved bombs inside of backpacks. jon: right. >> another attack would have been on the new york stock exchange that was thwarted by the fbi. they were able to locate a key figure in the mumbai bombing that killed 160 people in eupbld yeah. they wer india. they were able to find that figure in part because of the leads from this program, so this is important for people to know and understand, and like i said, i think it's a very important conversation to be having. jon: that particular denver incident, that involved nazi bolaza st-rbgs i, arrested on his drive to new york city with backpacks and bomb-making components. all you have to do is look at the london bus bombings to see what happened when a bunch of backpack bombs get left on a

mass transportation device. >> and what could have happened. again, the number they are talking about now is 50 possibly prevented by this program. again, it's interesting to listen to the details of the testimony, jon, because what it is, this provides leads for investigators. they have to go back to court to get search warrants to investigate, to listen in on conversations, and so forth. this is simply the leads that are provided by this metadata gathering, that is gathering information about phone calls made from outside the country into this country and vice versa. they specifically said that phone calls within the countot s way, at least by the nsa, although i noticed they didn't mention the fbi, who knows what goes on there. but it's a program specifically to look at potential terrorist connections, sleeper cells and so forth within this country. they've also gone down the road of showing the american public

what kind of oversight is provided for this program. the court system, congress, how congress has authorized this program, and by the way, even though snowden came out and acted like this was big news, it's something that is known, it's been reported, it's been known on capitol hill, it's just his sort of explosive charges that brought it to the forefront. the good news out of that is that we are having this conversation about what -- you know, things like surveillance as part of a tool kit of protecting the american nation. >> and there was an interesting moment too when i believe -- well i don't remember which of the nsa speakers said it, but essentially they said that the tkhat a that is bein data collected in his view was not necessarily private because it's already available to phone companies and so forth, which number is called, what time the call is made, that kind of thing. >> he pointed out a court ruling in fact on that where -- because it's on your bill, your phone

bill comes with the phone numbers that you've dialed. so that actually you've -- 4 there isn't an assumption of privacy. there is, however, an assumption of privacy about your conversations and whether they can be tapped into. jon: right. >> and of course that requires a further search warrant and that requires a level of investigation and oversight that this does not rise to that level. >> in the same way your mail is private and federally protected yet the outside of the envelope has addresses on it and the postman and the sorters and everybody else can see those. nina easton, the arguing and the testimony goes on in front of the house committee. thank you. >> thank you. jenna: one of the questions we're asking is that this didn't just happen in a vacuum. we've talked about the i.r.s. scandal and the doj taking a look at skwroupb journalists including those at fox news. in the prism much what is happening in dc one of the questions that might surface is whether or not we can trust the

information we are getting, do we have the complete information? that is some of the questions you've been raising on social media as well. you can continue to watch the hearings on foxnews.com. we'll be right back with more coverage here on "happening now" "

jenna: back to washington d.c. where we are watching analyst epg to this hearinand and listening to a hearing involving the nsa. this is robert lit the general director of the national intelligence.

he's been asked a question whether or not we'll see the opinions of this fiza r-r court thacourt that approves them to look into the content of conversations. and there's been a bipartisan effort to get a look at some of the opinions. his argument just then was that if we share that we could be exposing classified information and also if we redact certain things it will end up looking like swiss cheese, that was his quote. of it looks like there is push back about showing anything about the fiza program. we'll see what happens as lawmakers continue to question this panel. let's go ahead and particular a listen. >> as a general provision that allows the acquisition of business records. if it's relevant to a national security investigation. so that showing has to be made to the court to allow that subpoena to issue that there is a relevance and a connection. and that can be any number of different kinds of records that a business might maintain, customer records, purchase orders, things of that nature.

somebody buys materials that they could make an explosive out of, you could go to a company that sells those and get records of the purchase, things of that nature. >> what about emails? >> emails would not be covered by business records in that regard. you would have to under the electronic communications privacy act get specific court authorization for emails that stored content, if you're going to be looking at them in realtime while they are going you'll have a separate fiza court order that would allow you to do that. it wouldn't be covered by the business records. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> just to make sure, one clear mart on the system administrator versus -- what you get access to is helping to run the network and the web service that are on that network that are publicly available. to get to any data like the business records, 215 data that we're talking about that's in an exceptionally controlled area. you'd have to have specific certificates to get into that.

i am not aware that he had -- he, snowden had any access to that. on the reasonable articulable suspicion numbers and what we're seeing there i don't know of any inaccurate raz numbers that have occurred since 2009. there are rigorous controls that we have from a technical perspective that once a number is considered raz approved that you put that number in, you can't make a mistake because the system helps correct that now. so that is a technical control that we've put in there. >> i yield back. >> thank you, general. thank you for your long service. mr. cole and mr. english went through a very extensive array of the oversight that are associated with what is going on. in a business environment it is required that companies go through the entire system to make sure that not only do the details, trees work but that the forest works as well.

is there anyone at the vast array of what you guys are doing that steps back and says, all right, our goal is to protect privacy and civil liberties and we are doing the very best we can, is there an internal control audit so to speak that looks that the entire system that says we have the waterfront covered and we are doing what we need to be doing? >> i'll start. there are the periodic reviews that i've described that audit everything that is done under both of these programs by both nsa and the department of justice, and the office of the director of national intelligence, and we report to the court and we report to congress. so all of that is done looking at the whole program at the same time. >> looking at the program of that, i understand that the various pieces work really well and they are designed to go at it and create the kind of audit process. is there an overall look at everything that is done to say we've got it all covered, or -- and if we don't an and there

are suggestions that you need to prove it? where do no, sir suggestions get vetted and have we had suggestions where you said no we don't node to d need to do that. >> there are at two levels that that take place. by statute alternate the office of the director of national security there is alex joel who is an incredibly capable person whose job it is to take a look at our programs. >> that person would have the requisite clearances to know all the details. >> absolutely. he is in fact part of this audit process as well, his office is. the second thing is, outside of the intelligence community the president's oversight board which has five confirmed members is also charged with evaluating the impact of our counterterrorism programs on paoeufs se privacy and civil liberties.

they have full clearances and the ability to get full visibility into this program. in fact they have recently been briefed on the programs and i know they are in fact looking at them to make exactly that kind of assessment. >> who do they report to? is that report public? >> it's the president's board. i suspect that they are making a classified report it would not be public. to the extent they can make an up classified report it's up to them whether it becomes public. >> several of you mentioned a term, minimum myization and a rolling five years on the business records. they are personalized, they get rid of, destroy. in an electronic setting can you help us understand what that means. when i shred a piece of paper into a thousand pieces that is one thing. the number of times you back up data, can a person feel like this minimum myization works electronic and wee-wee have in fact deleted all the things we were supposed to delete.

>> yes, sir, i believe they can. we have a fairly comprehensive speus them at the nsa. whether we collect anything under this authority or some other we bind to that communication where we got it, how we got it, what authority we got it under so we know precisely whether we can retain it for some fixed period of time. and if it simply ages off in the case of the vr fiza data we talked about the a the the expiration of the five years it is taken out. >> the representatives from the nsa are answering one of the questions that so many americans have, can we trust the stories we are being told by our government officials in light of the revelations of edward snowden, the 29-year-old contractor and high school drop out who has trust upon the world the met a data collection programs that the nsa is involved in. we have the testimony streaming live for you on foxnews.com. we'll be back with more in just a couple of minutes.

>> announcer: you never know when, but thieves can steal your identity and turn your life upside down. >> hi. >> hi. you know, i can save you 15% today if you open up a charge card account with us. >> you just read my mind. >> announcer: just one little piece of information and they can open bogus accounts, stealing your credit, your money and ruining your reputation. that's why you need lifelock to relentlessly protect what matters most... [beeping...] helping stop crooks before your identity is attacked. and now you can have the most comprehensive identity theft protection available today...

lifelock ultimate. so for protection you just can't get anywhere else, get lifelock ultimate. >> i didn't know how serious identity theft was until i lost my credit and eventually i lost my home. >> announcer: credit monitoring is not enough, because it tells you after the fact, sometimes as much as 30 days later. with lifelock, as soon as our network spots a threat to your identity, you'll get a proactive risk alert, protecting you before you become a victim. >> identity theft was a huge, huge problem for me and it's gone away because of lifelock. >> announcer: while no one can stop all identity theft, if criminals do steal your information, lifelock will help fix it, with our $1 million service guarantee. don't wait until you become the next victim. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock now to get two full months of identity theft protection risk free. that's right, 60 days risk-free. use promo code: gethelp. if you're not completely satisfied, notify lifelock and you won't pay a cent.

order now and also get this shredder to keep your documents out of the wrong hands-- a $29 dollar value, free. get protected now. call the number on your screen or go to lifelock.com to try lifelock protection risk free for a full 60 days. use promo code: gethelp. plus get this document shredder free-- but only if you act right now. call the number on your screen now! jon: fox news alert. the man on your screen right now is robert litt, general counsel for the national security agency. the group's top lawyer. he is testifying in front of the house of intelligence committee about the revelations of edward snowden the 29-year-old former contractor for the nsa who alleges that that group is in his view illegally collecting all kinds of information about american citizens. the testimony goes on, let's listen in. >> programs primarily target non

u.s. persons, but can you -- this is probably a question for you mr. joyce just to clarify you've said if a u.s. person or overseas, or a non u.s. person living in the united states, that if -- we become aware that they may be involved in terrorist activity that they are served process. can you go into that level of detail of what then happens and how the courts are involved if we become aware that a u.s. person or -- is involved? >> so i think either maybe i misspoke or you misspoke. we are not looking at all at u.s. persons. the 702 is anyone outside the united states, and even if a u.s. person is outside of the united states it does not include that in the 702 coverage. it's a non u.s. person outside the unit has to have -- there's three different criteria, one of those links is terrorism.

that is where specifically only certain individuals are targeted, those ones, under the criteria linked to terrorism. numerous occasions as i've outlined in some of the examples, those individuals, outside the united states were discovered communicating with someone inside the united states. we then, that is being tipped from the nsa. we then go through the legal process here, the fbi does, regarding that u.s. person. so we go and we have to serve what is called a national security letter to identify the subscriber, it's much like a subpoena, following that if we want to pursue electronic surveillance we have to make a specific application regarding that person with the fiza court here. >> that's what i was looking for. thanks very much. i yield back. >> if i could, just to follow on and to clarify, as we're going through this i want to make sure everything we say is exactly right from my perspective, as shaun said nsa may not target

the phone calls or emails of any u.s. person anywhere in the world without individualized court orders. >> thank you. >> that's an important point we can't make enough. will lobiando. >> thank you mr. chairman. general alexander and team, thank you for helping us understand in so many closed sessions and hopefully helping the nation understand -- jon: the top leaders at the nsa, the national security agency along with a representative from the fbi are testifying in front of the house intelligence committee about this big data collection program that was just revealed by edward snowden, the diseffected 29-year-old norm ercis terms administrator for a contractor that worked for the nsa. he has since been fired. if you'd like to continue to watch these inc uninterrupted

we have these for you on foxnews.com. now you can give yourself a kick in the rear! v8 v-fusion plus energy. natural energy from green tea plus fruits and veggies. need a little kick? ooh! could've had a v8. in the juice aisle.

jenna: back to the hearing in washington d.c. a congressman inquiring about business records and access to past business records. let's take a listen. >> you do that, does that require separate court approval or does the general fisa court order allow you when you're analysts have the reasonable arctic aour arkansas particularrable facts to make that questioner lee? every time you make the query does it have to be approved by the court? >> we do not have to get separate court approval for each query, the court sets out the standard that must be met in order to make the query in its order and that is in the primary order. and then that is what we audit

in a very robust way in any number of different facets through both executive branch and then give it to the court and give it to the congress. so we're given that 90-day period with these parameters and restrictions to access it. we don't go back to the court each time. >> and does the court scrutinize after you present back to the court, these are the occasions where we found reasonable, articulable facts, do they securitthey security nice your basis for foes queries. >> yes they do. >> i'd like to raise this publicly as well as i did in closed session, what are the prospects for changing the program such that rather than the government acquiring the vast amounts of met metta data the companies retain the metta data and only on the 300 occasions where it needs to be

queried, our questioner ring the providers for whether they have those business records related to a reasonable articulable suspicion of a foreign terrorist connection? >> i think jointly the fbi, and nsa are looking at the architectural framework of how we actually do this program, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of doing each one. each case, as you know from our discussions, if you leave it at the service providers you have a separate set of issues, in terms of how you actually get the information and how you have to go back and get that information, and how you follow it on, and the legal authority for them to compel them to keep these records for a certain period of time. so what we're doing is we're going to look at that, come back to the direct he shall of national intelligence, the administration and then to you all and give you recommendations on that for both the house and the senate. i do think that that is something that we've agreed to look at and that we'll do, it's just going to take some time. we want to do it right.

and i think just to set expectations, the concern is speed in crisis, how do we do this. jon: it's been about ten days now since americans learned that that man the head of the national security agency, that agency is able to vacuum uptons of data about our phone calls, what are they doing with it? that is the public of this hearing right now. it's available to you live on foxnews.com if you'd like to continue to watch, and next hour we'll be talking more about what we have learned in this testimony today and helping you to break it all down. the head of the nsa says it makes us safer. does it? we'll talk about it coming up.

if you're suffering from constipation, miralax or metamucil may take days to work. or faster relief, try dulcolax laxative tablets. dulcolax provides gentle relief overnight unlike miralax and metamucil that can take up to 3 days. for predictable relief try dulcolax. from the united states postal service a small design firm can ship like a big business. just go online to pay, print and have your packages picked up for free. we'll do the rest. ♪ woman: what do you mean, homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods? [ heart rate increases ] man: a few inches of water caused all this? [ heart rate increases ] woman #2: but i don't even live near the water. what you don't know about flood insurance may shock you --

including the fact that a preferred risk policy starts as low as $129 a year. for an agent, call the number that appears on your screen. jon: 12:00 noon on the east coast and right now brand new stories and breaking news. demonstrators shut down hearings on capitol hill this morning. we'll go life to washington with more on the fiery fight over the future of illegal immigrants. plus, a may or you milestone -- major mile toni in afghanistan. and a teen who refused to take off his pro-nra t-shirt in school is now facing charges that could put him in jail for a year. our legal panel breaks it all down for us. ♪ ♪ jon: and brand new details about the impact of the nsa's once-top

secret program and the terror attacks that its leader says were stopped because of it. i'm jon scott. jenna: welcome to the second hour of "happening now," i'm jenna lee. and what we're getting on capitol hill is a rare open hearing with the director of the national security agency, general keith alexander, testifying about the government's sweeping surveillance programs. it's the very one that edward snowden leaked classified information about. today the nsa chief revealed for the first time the number of terror plots he says the feds busted up. >> 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. jenna: we previously heard dozens. chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge is live in washington. what else are we learning about

these plots that were, apparently, broken up? >> reporter: well, thanks, jenna, good morning. as we just heard from the head of the national security agency, keith alexander, he believes these controversial programs have provided leads that have helped disrupt what he said were 50 potential terrorist events, and more specifically 90% of those cases are linked to the collection of foreign internet communications and not the collection of phone records of american citizens. >> these programs are limited, focused and subject to rigorous oversight. they have distinct purposes and oversight mechanisms. we have rigorous training programs for our analysts and their supervisors to understand their responsibilities regarding compliance. >> reporter: witnesses testified this morning that information from the controversial programs helped prevent at least three specific plots. we've heard before about the new york city subway plot in 2009 with nanny bull zazi, also to

strike the new york stock exchange. also american david headley who was part of a plot overseas and then the transfer of money from the united states to al-qaeda and specifically a group in somalia. we also learned that they can only target u.s. citizens with a specific court order, but if you actually drill down into these cases, for example, the case of david headley, what they did not testify today is that between 2006 and 2008 he was completely missed by the system when he conducted almost half a dozen surveillance trips to india for the mumbai terrorist attack in 2008. it was only the following year, in 2009, that he was captured by these nsa programs, jenna. jenna: that's important context for us, catherine, as we're continuing to learn more about the targeting process. it can be difficult to understand all the nuances and the laws. what do you think is standing out most to you, and what more should we be asking about this targeting process? >> reporter: well, witnesses

testified at length this morning about the criteria that must be in place in order to query the database. for example, they were told there's a small pool of analysts and managers at the nsa, about two dozen people, and they decide if there is something called a tangible or an articulable, so, in other words, you can write it down, and you can lay it out in words reason to query these phone numbers. and when there are mistakes, the nsa says that they are reported. >> every now and then there may be a mistake, a wrong phone number is hit or a person who shouldn't have been targeted gets targeted because there's a mistake in the phone record, something like that. each of those compliance incidents, if and when they occur, have to be reported to the fisa court immediately. >> reporter: and the head of the nsa testifying that there are 1,000 system administrators, the same job that was held by the nsa leaker edward snowden.

they have the same job, they hold the same security clearances, and they also testified that the vast majority are, in fact, contractors just like snowden. i think one of the biggest takeaways this morning is that when it comes to doing these queries of the phone records, this does not require a court order. this is done by a handful of people at the nsa, and just before we came into the top of your show, we had an important back and forth with democratic congressman adam ship who, again, laid this out that this is an internal process at the nsa, it is not subject to court approval. jenna? jenna: interesting. as we know, our laws are only add good as if they're in force. when a mistake is made, a lot more to learn here as well. catherine, thank you so much for breaking that down. >> reporter: you're welcome. jon: for more on the political fallout on some of the other scandals that washington is

embroiled in right now, i'm joined by joe trippi, former campaign manager for h dean, also a fox news contributor. i want to take a look at the latest fox news poll regarding president obama's job performance. 44% right now approve of the job he's doing. that's the lowest number he's had in more than a year. what does it say to you? >> well, it's clear from a number of polls now that particularly among young people, 30 and below, that he's lost a lot of favorability. and with independents too. and i think it all stems from the, most of it stems from the nsa issue because we're watching today. what's happened is young people are very focused on privacy online, on their cell phones. i mean, they're much more sensitive to that issue than older americans. and they don't like what they were hearing in the past ten days. now, whether the hearings -- one

thing i'd caution is these polls are always a snapshot in time, jon. and so you can, you know, as they're learning more about the program, they may feel more comfortable, they may feel worse. we don't know yet, it's going to take a while. but he's definitely suffering some hit to his favorability, particularly among young people and independents, two groups that supported him in the november election for re-election. jon: there's another poll out about whether or not the president is simply honest. and for the first time he's below the 50% mark in that poll. 48% of americans believe he's honest and trustworthy, 48% say he's not. now, again, it's the first time he's been below 50% on that, on that score as i understand it. what does that tell you? >> well it, again, he's taking on some water here. and, again, all these issues -- irs, ap, the press investigation

into james rosen from justice -- all these issues are getting to the trust issue in government. and that's definitely impacting the president. not so much yet. again, generally when these things hit, people go to their corners. they go, democrats go into the corner, republicans go into the corner. it's where the independents and other groups go. and generally those groups have sided with the president on these things. they're not anymore. they're starting to move away. that's a danger sign for him. jon: but the practical effect of all this, it does impact his ability to govern, doesn't snit i mean, because leaders of the house, for instance, are watching these poll numbers, and they're seeing whether or not the president has the political capital he wants to expend to get things like, you know, this obama carroll outgoing. >> oh, no question about it. capitol hill, if he's got numbers in the 60s, they're afraid of him. and if he's got numbers in the 40s, they're a lot less afraid of him, of the political consequences of challenging him.

so the caution here, though, is to not read too much into this snapshot. it usually takes about two months for this, these kind of numbers to filter out. he could, you know, we don't know how this is going to play out yet. but right now if i were the white house, these are dangerous signs for them and their agenda. jon: seems to have been a rocky beginning to this second term. >> yes, it has. jon: all right. joejoe trippi, thank you. jenna: on the agenda, "happening now" is immigration reform, tackling the first of four bills for reforming america's immigration system. first at bat, toughening america's border security. earlier on "happening now" we spoke to senator rubio, he's one to have so-called gang of eight senators behind the comprehensive immigration bill making its way through the senate right now. the florida republican had this to say to the plan's critics who say the senate's bill either doesn't do enough to address security or criticize it for overreaching, specifically with its e-verify system.

>> many of the opponents of this bill are people that have been filing e-verify bills or have been supporting them for a long time. and the reason is because we understand fundamentally that the driver of illegal immigration are jobs that are available in the united states. and the only way you're going to cut that off successfully, the only way you're going to cut that off successfully is by having a way for employers and requiring employers in a cost effective way to verify that the person they're hiring is legally here. jenna: concern with that is that it becomes a national database for everybody, not just people that maybe there's a question about. chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel is live on capitol hill watching this debate. an exciting morning so far for you, mike, especially on this immigration issue. >> reporter: yeah, jenna, no question about that. the safe act has really brought out a lot of emotion from folks who have been in the house judiciary committee hearing. the bottom line is what this bill would do would be giving local and state law enforcement officers even away from the border the ability to enforce immigration laws. congressman trey gowdy,

republican of south carolina, talked about why this safe act makes sense to him. >> the overwhelming majority of our laws, mr. chairman, are enforced and investigated by men and women who work for state and local law enforcement agencies. and we trust them to enforce laws ranging from capital murder to shoplifting. and everything in between. >> reporter: so if they investigate murders, why not immigration violations? a democrat who's been working on bipartisan immigration reform in the house says she believes this measure could lead to racial profiling and unconstitutional arrests. >> this is very personal to families whose family members are threatened, people who live in fear who want to become americans. and i think if this bill were to become law, we would expect, as we saw eight years ago, millions of american citizens taking to the streets to demonstrate to protect members of their family and members of their community.

>> reporter: this whole immigration reform debate is quite emotional, quite heated. there were several disruptions earlier today of the house judiciary committee hearing. the protesters were eventually escorted out. meanwhile, california republican congressman dana rohrabacher has suggested that house speaker john boehner should be removed from his post if he were to bring up the senate immigration bill for a vote in the house. rohrabacher says it would be a betrayal. boehner says he doesn't see bringing forward a bill that doesn't have majority support of republicans. >> on the house side, i've made clear to our members that we're going to have a discussion about this on july the 10th. we're going to have a special conference, and we're going to lay all of this out and listen to what the members have to say. i also suggested to our members today that any immigration reform bill that is going to go into law ought to have a majority of both parties' support if we're really serious about making that happen.

>> reporter: bottom line, a lot of conservatives don't feel like the senate immigration bill as it stands has enough security measures in it, and so that's why there's some concern with house conservatives. meanwhile in the senate today, they're expecting a vote on four amendments related to immigration reform. plenty of work ahead. jenna: and they're trying to get it all done by july 1st. we'll see if they can do it. mike, thank you. >> reporter: thank you, jenna. jon: you don't want this on your next flight, the screaming of an out of control airplane passenger caught on camera. listen. we are now hearing from passengers who teamed up with flight attendants to control this guy. what they are saying about this scare in the air. also, china's move into america's coal industry raising serious questions. what does it mean for the energy market? is

the irs is out of control targeting law-abiding citizens playing politics losing their receipts for lavish spending let's end the irs [typewter] callor go to 88-390-3450 end the irs dotcom we can do it. hundreds of thousands of us have contributed or signed up. our best chance ever to shutter the irs is now

humans. we are beautifully imperfect creatures living in an imperfect world. that's why liberty mutual insurance has your back, offering exclusive products like optional better car replacement, where if your car is totaled, we give you the money to buy one a model year newer. call... and ask an insurance expert about all our benefits today, like our 24/7 support and service, because at liberty mutual insurance, we believe our customers do their best out there in the world, so we do everything we can to be there for them when they need us. plus, you could save hundreds when you switch, up to $423. call... today. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?

jon: president obama caught in a verd photo op with russia's president vladimir putin. this as the u.s. and russia remain far apart on how to handle the syria situation. back in 2009 here president obama is doing his best to warm international relations. he met for the first time with then-prime minister putin in moscow. the president leaning in toward mr. putin trying to engage him while the prime minister sort of sinks back into his chair. then last year president obama was trying to warm up relations again. he was caught on camera asking russian president medvedev to send a message to mr. putin about missile defense systems. remember this? jon: well, so let's take you forward then to yesterday. president obama meeting again with now-president putin at the j8 summit in northern ireland.

g8 summit in northern ireland. do you get a sense of the tension? a frosty meeting days after the u.s. announced it would authorize military help for the syrian rebels while russia remains a strong ally of the syrian regime, bashar al assad. plus we just found out about u.s. and british intelligence spying on delegates during the g20 summit in 2009. that according to edward snowden. president obama tries to lighten the mood, but his attempt at levity doesn't go over very went listen. >> and my declining skills in basketball. [speaking russian] >> the president wants to relax me with his statement -- [laughter] jon: awkward!

jenna: yeah. everyone kind of leaning back like this, huh? >>nd jon they did have a handshake at the end, though, as you saw. jenna: interesting. a little more about russian and american relations -- i'm got to not sit back. i actually like you -- with mike o'hanlon coming up. we're going to talk about how that figures into syria. there was that reset button, right? we did see that. jon: doesn't seem to have done a whole lot of good. jenna: in the meantime, the chinese purchase of a mining company in tennessee's coal country is raising serious questions about the impact on energy markets here in the united states. we're taking a look at another country and our interaction with them. john roberts is live in atlanta with more on this. so, john, this is creating some unusual political alliances, isn't it? >> reporter: afternoon, jenna. yes, some strange political bed fellows, indeed. tennessee's largest conservative group, the tennessee conservative union, is joining forces with environmental groups to try to put an end to mountaintop coal mining.

the reason why, a chinese investment company was quietly buying hhh coal and wanted to gain access to mining coal in the tennessee mountains. when the tcu found out about it, it erupted into a full-throated protest with this rather pointed advertisement. have a look. >> tennessee has become the fist state in our great -- first state in our great nation to permit the red chinese to destroy our mountains and take our coal. i know they're trading partners with us, we owe them a lot of money. but the fact is, they're still the enemy, and they're still the enemy because of one thing. communism is anti-liberty. america is pro-liberty. >> reporter: those two things cannot coexist, says lloyd doherty from the tennessee conservative union, so the tcu has now thrown its full support behind a bill which, if passed in the tennessee legislature next year, jenna, would put an end to mountaintop coal mining. jenna: interesting. so what is the industry saying? >> reporter: it's a little bit

complicated. if you talk to a lot of miner, a lot of mine operators, privately they'll say they're not really comfortable with the idea of a chinese company coming in and buying an american coal company and then shipping the coal back to china. but the tennessee mining association is standing behind the chinese buyout. listen. >> this is a chinese company, this is not the government of china. this is a privately-owned company that are coming in and buying and creating jobs and creating, paying taxes, and they're not bringing in a lot of people. they'll be using local people to do the work, so it's a job creator for us. >> reporter: and they say there are a lot of jobs created by mountaintop mining and tennessee just cannot afford to lose those jobs. jenna? jenna: john, thank you. jon: well, the training wheels are off, and beginning today in afghanistan that country's troops are taking the lead in security. a major milestone in the nearly 12-year-old war launched after the 9/11 attacks. and it comes as we get word the

taliban will now negotiate in peace negotiations. what does it all mean to u.s. security and the safety of our forces over there? i invest in what i know. i turned 65 last week. i'm getting married. planning a life. there are risks, sure. but, there's no reward without it. i want to be prepared for the long haul. i see a world bursting with opportunities. india, china, brazil, ishares, small-caps, large-caps, ishares. industrials. low cost. every dollar counts. ishares. income. dividends. bonds. i like bonds. ishares. commodities. diversification. choices. my own ideas. ishares. i want to use the same stuff the big guys use. ishares. 9 out of 10 large, professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. introducing the ishares core, etfs for the heart of your portfolio. taefficient and low cost building blocks to help you keep more of what you earn. call your advisor. visit ishares.com. ishares. yeah, ishares.

ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing.

jon: a fox news alert, and fox has just learned that admiral mike mullen, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the co-chair of the accountability review board or arb which studied what happened in the benghazi attacks, will grant a closed door interview in front to have house oversight committee tomorrow morning on the benghazi attack. the co-author of that arb report, admiral thomas -- i'm sorry, ambassador thomas pickering, also has testified. this will complete the cycle at least for the two authors of that report testifying in front of congress. jenna: well, "happening now" on

a day where we're continuing to debate the nsa and the big surveillance program, we can't lose sight as to why we even have that program to begin with, and that's 9/11. that's also the reason we went to war in afghanistan, but we certainly don't talk a lot about the war anymore. so we wanted to take a moment to do that today. there's some big announcements out of afghanistan today. security throughout that country is now primarily in the hands of afghan forces with america and nato allies playing a supporting role. again, a big announcement today about that change. reports suggest this clears the way for a full withdrawal of foreign troops in 18 months. also happening today, an official announcement now that talks will happen between the united states and the taliban and between the taliban and the afghanistan government through a new political office that's opening in doha. so that's also happening. mike to hand land's been to afghanistan ten times over the years, he's a senior fellow at the brookings institution. michael, it's great to have you

back with us. >> thank you, jenna. jenna: what's the significance of all of this? >> well, let's start with the peace talks with the taliban first. i was also in doha last week, and so was president karzai -- jenna: were you there together? because our viewers might want to know. [laughter] >> no. although brookings did -- my colleagues held a conference, u.s. relations with the islamic world, and president karzai spoke with that, so that was part of why he was there, but he was there to speak with the emir of qatar, and i have to assume one of their subjects was this taliban office. however, i would say let's not get hopes up on that because you referred correctly to the fact that we expect most nato troops to leave by the end of next year, a lot of the taliban really think their going to win -- they're going to win the war at that point. despite all these milestones -- which i think are quite significant, and by the way, i think the taliban's wrong in its assessment -- but they seem to think that paves the way for them to retake power just like

in the 1990s after the soviet departure. again, i think they're fundamentally wrong, and the two situations are fundamentally different. but begin their mindset, i would be very surprised if any peace talks went very far. it's still a good thing to explore as long as we keep our expectations modest -- jenna: why? >> -- and don't let daylight emerge between us and president karzai and other people quote-own -- unquote. jenna: michael, let me interrupt. why is it a good idea to sit down with these guys who are still our enemies 12 years now in? >> it's a very good question. first of all, we have to be very clear, we're not interested in compromising our core principles. if they want to kick girls out of school, if they want to kick foreign troops out of the country immediately even when the government of afghanistan still wants them there, if they reject the constitution of the goth -- government of afghanistan, there's no interest in compromising on these core points. not only do we americans have no interest in compromising, but

afghans and their government generally have no interest in compromising. and so what you have to do, i think, is look for an opportunity to get some of the second tier taliban leaders to break off from the main movement. and, certainly, if mullah omar and the other top cronies of his were to ever change their mind and renounce violence and accept the constitution, you could, obviously, have a peace negotiation. otherwise you're really just trying to clarify that they don't want peace and that any of the people who do within their organization are going to have to break off before they can really have a successful deal. jenna: so you're wondering if the taliban's involved, if there's a taliban 2.0 to negotiate on with some of these other issues. >> i doubt it, you're right. yeah. jenna: does it still look like we've lost in afghanistan, and what is the impact of that? >> by the way, i think there is a taliban 2.0, but it's mostly a kinder, gentler image. it's not really a fundamentally-changed identitiology, and i think we'll

discover that in the negotiation, and, therefore, my expectation is they won't go very far, but let's still try. in terms for the prospects for the war, you know, 90% of the population is generally living in relatively secure areas. yes, every so often there's a bombing or a spectacular terrorist attack. but if you take the one that happened last week, it was seven taliban who managed to get close to the kabul airport and shut it down for two or three hours. but they ultimately got themselves killed and did not inflict any major damage on anybody or cause any casualties that i'm aware of except to themselves. some of their attacks do cause casualties, of course. but overall, the afghan population is living in area that is the government controls. and the afghan army and police are a lot, lot better. you mentioned this transition place, it's ongoing, it's not over. we still have 65,000 americans backing up the afghans. but they are doing 85-90% of the major operations either on their own or with us just in a supporting role, and we've got a schedule to keep increasing that

percentage over the next 18 months. so i look at this, and i see relatively promising situation. unfortunately, the taliban is still a strong and to tent enemy, but they're not winning. jenna: michael, it's great to have you on. we didn't get to the topic of whether or not afghanistan is somehow a model for syria, because we have both russian and american involvement in afghanistan, we've seen that in the past and whether or not that's actually happening in syria and playing itself out. so we hope to have you back and have even longer to talk about that, michael. great to see you. thank you so much. >> thank you, jenna. jon: well, did you hear about this? president obama taking a page and maybe more than that from his campaign playbook when it comes to rolling out the massive health care overhaul? will this plan work? we'll go in depth. and trouble for a west coast icon. what's the problem with the cable car? let's go to claudia cowan on the streets of san francisco. claudia? >> reporter: hi, jon. well, they are a fun way to see san francisco and famous around the world, but cable car rides

are not always care-free, and accidents are costing the city millions. i'll have a live report coming right up. with diabetes, it's tough to keep life balanced.

i don't always have time to eat like i should. that's why i like glucerna shakes. they have slowly digestible carbs to help minimize blood sugar spikes. [ male announcer ] glucerna. helping people with diabetes find balance.

jon: obamacare, it is the president's signature piece of domestic legislation and what is sure to be a key part of his legacy. now as president obama rolls out the massive health care overhaul, he seems to be doing it with a campaign-style mindset, adapting the grassroots tactics to try to sell the

program to the american people and organizing for action, the group that replaced the president's 2012 campaign apparatus, obama for america, even launched a tv ad. take a listen. >> what's the impact of obamacare? the truth is americans are already seeing the benefits. she's seeing more seniors for free wellness visits. he received a $150 rebate from his health insurance company. and next year she can expand her small business thanks to tax credits that cover up to half of her workers' health insurance. jon: joining us now is jonah goldberg, editor at large for the national review and a fox news contributor. that commercial makes me want to run right out and sign up for obamacare, jonah. how about you? [laughter] >> yeah, no, absolutely. jon: i get a $150 check, apparently, if i sign up. >> i'm not sure you do given where i hope they're paying you, but -- [laughter] finish. jon: yeah -- go ahead.

>> okay. we'll just move on from that. look, i think this is a fascinating effort, and maybe it'll work. i sincerely and profoundly doubt it. i think that these guys are, you know, they're very, very good at organizing people. the problem is that it's one thing to get people to be part of a sort of, you know, pepsi ad campaign thing for voting for a president, it's aspirational, it's schmaltzy, it's poetic. this is asking young people, young, healthy people who are disproportionately poor and out of work to spend hundreds of dollars on health insurance that by definition the benefits of which will be -- [inaudible] and that is a much harder sell. and i have some deep skepticism that they'll be able to pull it off at the numbers that they need to. jon: yeah. this was written up today in politico, the political information web site. and one of the lines in that

caught me, caught my eye. it said a trio of the president's most experienced cam pain operatives -- campaign operatives are overseeing the effort to insure that the affordable care act doesn't turn into the failure that the gop predicts it will be. so this is all part of an effort to try to sell this thing that the president has assured us is going to be good for all of us. >> well, you know, it's funny, they have been selling for almost five years now something that, you know, they've been telling us all along should sell itself, right? they said when this thing is passed, people will enjoy the benefit, and then it will become popular. they said that there was literally nothing wrong with it, that no one would lose their insurance, no one's costs would go up. none of the things they have said to sell this thing have turned out to be true yet. lots of people's premiums are going to go up, lots of people are going to lose the plans that they have, and now they're trying one more time in advance of the 2014 elections to sort of

make this thing popular and get people to sign up for it. the problem is even if they're successful, lots of premiums will still go up, lots of people will lose their health care, lots of employers will cut back their hours and turn their workers into part-time workers so they don't have to enroll them completely on this thing. and in almost every single way, this thing is still destined to become a political and economic albatross. jon: i just wonder about the taste of it. i mean, we played that commercial at the beginning of all of this that, again, is being sort of, you know, pushed by what used to be the president's campaign organization, that line, for instance, about he's getting a $150 check. well, yes, there will be a very small percentage of obamacare recipients who get some kind of a check. but they're only the people who buy their own policies, as we understand it, a small fraction of the market. and, you know, it's not even necessarily going to be $150. it's a little bit like

advertising, you know, buy a lottery ticket and you might win, isn't it? >> yeah, no, you know, if you order now, you get this second set of ginsu knives free. [laughter] there's also, there's also the problem that's raised by this commercial and raised by this entire effort that it doesn't happen in a vacuum. we're in the moment politically where president obama has come under fire like no president since richard fix son for blurring -- nixon for blurring the lines between public policy and rank politics. now he has got his entire campaign organization working overtime expressly for the purpose of saving president obama's legacy. and that is going to look really weird. you know, organizing for america which put out that ad, that's one of those 501c organizations that the irs green lighted and gave status to right away -- jon: right. >> not like the groups that disagree with it. and all of that gets thrown into the mix and makes it much more difficult to trust the entire effort. a lot of young people for obama's legacy, it's not a great sell.

jon: all those folks who helped buy those tv commercials got a tax deduction to make that creation. joe-and-a-half goldberg, thank you. jenna: a san francisco icon, a major tourist attraction under fire. apparently, there are dangers associated with cable cars, and the city is shelling out millions and millions of dollars because of them. claudia cowan is live in san francisco with more on what could be dangerous about these cable cars, claudia? >> reporter: well, jenna, you know everybody loves the cable cars. they actually only operate on about 8 miles of tracker, but their open-air design does not offer a lot of protection, and when you have 19th century technology butting up against 21st century traffic, one result is an accident rate of about once a month. now, some passengers who hang out the side have been clipped by other cars and trucks, some riders who have slipped underneath moving cable cars have lost their feet or legs. cable cars only go about 9 miles

an hour, but they weigh more than 50,000 pounds, and sudden braking can cause problems as happened in february when seven people were hurt because of an obstacle that fell on the track. >> the brakemen sometimes have to throw the emergency brake which is a metal wedge that, boom, slams into the track, stops the cable car instantaneously about one foot, throwing all the passengers. we see injuries from that all the time. >> reporter: city officials report 126 accidents over the last decade that have injured 152 them seriously, and at great cost to the city, more than $8 million to settle about four dozen legal claims. jenna? jenna: i'm looking on the web site. these cable cars have been around since the late 1800s? they've been around for a while, so what is the city saying about keeping them? >> reporter: well, yeah. you know, really all the city can do at this point is focussen to -- focus on operator training

and cable car may maintenance because these are here to stay. and they are a registered national landmark, and because of that they cannot be changed or redesigned in the any way. city officials say that's a good thing because tourists who come from around the world pump millions of dollars into the local economy here. so city officials are saying, look, if riders are careful and perhaps a bit more aware of the potential dangers, everyone should have a safe and memorable ride. jenna: they're really fun. i highly suggest it. as a native, just keep your hands inside the cable car. don't hang off of it. all right, claudia, thank you very much. jon: you probably had to ride one to high school, right? jenna: i actually rode one to work when i used to work downtown in san francisco, and it was great. jon: well, i'm sure. jenna: you just have to pay -- i mean, come on. come on. jon: hold on and keep your body inside the car, right? what is it about one 14-year-old's t-shirt that could have him tossed out of school and put in jail?

a civil liberties case getting a whole lot of attention today. we'll look at it coming up. man: i know the name of eight princesses. i'm on expert on softball. and tea parties. i'll have more awkward conversations than i'm equipped for, because i'm raising two girls on my own. i'll worry about the economy more than a few times before they're grown. but it's for them, so i've found a way. who matters most to you says the most about you. at massmutual we're owned by our policyowners, and they matter most to us. ready to plan for your future? we'll help you get there.

that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they help save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs. call today to request a free decision guide.

with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and you'll never need a referral to see a specialist. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. jenna: well, a shirt could land a west virginia teen in jail for a year. that's a little misleading, we'll get into it. this 14-year-old awz suspended from school and arrested after wearing a proof nra -- pro-nra t-shirt in class and refusing to take it off.

>> she said are you supposed to wear that in shirt? i said, i don't know why i shouldn't. i never thought it would go this far because there shouldn't be a problem with this. >> have an issue with a hunting rifle and nra put on the front of a t-shirt, especially when policy doesn't forbid it. jenna: can't get over his hair, that's the other part, right? lis wiehl as well as doug burns. doug, it's not the t-shirt that could land him in jail. >> no, and it's very easy to mistake this for a first amendment situation. that's not what happened. what happened was the police officer is saying that he disobeyed an order of the officer. i myself have -- jenna: excessive talking, is the allegation. >> excessive talking lands you -- jenna: the background betweened was that the police officer was called to school because after he came back from suspension, he cake came back with the t-shirt on again, one thing led to another. >> exactly. i can't do that here because this kid, eighth grade kid, former eighth grade kid, didn't

want to take the shirt off, nor should he have. he did not violate the policy with this shirt, and he put it back on, and then the police officer was called, and that's where doug's right -- >> i think lis should announce she's becoming a defense attorney. >>, no i'm not -- [laughter] jenna: we could all be guilty of excessive talking at one point or another. >> you know what? i had a client who was charged with resisting arrest, so i start looking at the paperwork, and you have to do an underlying offense that you can be arrested for, okay? and it was walking in the road instead of on the sidewalk. i'm serious. because there was an obscure regulation that said where a sidewalk's present, you have to walk on it instead of the road. it was ultimately dismissed. perry mason wins again. [laughter] >> but technically -- jenna: we're seeing this a lot that things are happening in schools, we saw it during the election, if somebody was wearing a mitt romney, the thirty -- >> exactly. jenna: so for parents out there, what powers do the schools

really have when it comes to what your child wears? >> well, for parents, be very careful what you send your kids out -- not that -- do you really want your kid to have to go through that? there was even somebody wearing an mit t-shirt, didn't even have -- >> do you know what i just saw? >> watch your kids before they go out in the morning. >> you made a point, this does link it to the first amendment because the point is he wore a shirt with something on it which led them to call the police. so as a defense attorney you could say none of this would have happened but for him wearing a shirt -- [inaudible conversations] jenna: at the end of the day, will the school have to pay anything, legal fees, anything like this? because it led to -- >> right, damages. potential some damages, you know, but what's going to happen is the charges will be dropped, and that's probably the most important thing. >> the case will be dismissed, and maybe the parents might make a little noise, and there'll be some kind of apology. they'll work it out. no litigation. jenna: do you have any, in the r

r -- nra t-shirts in your closet, doug? i think doug only wears suits. we're going to leave it there -- >> i refuse to answer that question. jenna: senator of you. >> but i did nothing wrong. jenna: we'll be right back with more "happening now." [ male announcer ] erica had a rough day. there was this and this. she got a parking ticket... ♪ and she forgot to pay her credit card bill on time. good thing she's got the citi simplicity card. it doesn't charge late fees or a penalty rate. ever. as in never ever. now about that parking ticket. [ grunting ] [ male announcer ] the citi simplicity card is the only card that never has late fees, a penalty rate, or an annual fee, ever. go to citi.com/simplicity to apply. luckily an emt gave me a bayer aspirin. i don't ever want to have another heart attack. i'm on a regimen of bayer aspirin. [ male announcer ] be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. be proactive. see your doctor.

jon: passengers arriving in the u.s. from hong kong forced to subdue an out of control man in the middle of their flight. now they're sharing their ordeal. patti ann brown live in the newsroom with more. >> reporter: that's right, jon. the flight was bound for newark, new jersey, after a stop in hong kong yesterday about ten hours into the 16-hour flight, a man jumped up and started screaming, help me. passengers say the man, identified as daniel morgan perry, an american in his 30s, seemed extremely paranoid. he said the u.s. government wanted to kill him, and he was afraid he was going to be

poisoned on the flight. he asked the crew on united flight 116 to divert to canada. he was ranting about the cia, the fbi and leaker edward snowden, but they say he didn't threaten anyone, only begged for help. >> he never threatened anyone, individual on the plane. he didn't threaten to blow up the plane, he didn't threaten to divert the plane. he was just saying that he had information relating to ed snowden, and he was being taken back to some safehouse someplace never to be seen again. >> reporter: well, he got so hysterical that passengers and crew had to subdue him and put plastic handcuffs on his hands and feet for the remaining six hours. after landing at 1:40 p.m., the man was transported to newark's university hospital. jon: not something you want to have happen at 35,000 feet. patti ann brown, thanks. jenna: well, the hearing is still going on on capitol hill. we're watching this, continuing to have full coverage at foxnews.com. we'll be right back with more.

.

xercise and ensure muscle health. i've got revigor. what's revigor? it's the amino acid metabolite hmb. along with protein, ensure helps rebuild muscle and strength naturally lost over time. [ female announcer ] ensure muscle health has revigor and protein to help protect, preserve, and promote muscle health. keeps you from getting soft. [ major nutrition ] ensure. nutrition in charge!

tornado comes through your town, tears apart your life, everything else, but in oklahoma, some of the survivors have one less thing to worry about today. a group of hairstylists donating their talent for free. project is called proper correct beauty for more. and the stylists say it all came together through donations and the power of social media. good for them.

>> you can speak to this. a little pep to your step when your hair is done nice, right? >> i sure do. good for them. >> very cool. thanks for joining us, everybody. >> "america live" starts right now. fox news alert on the end of the big summit meeting and the start of new questions about america's relationship with russia. and whatever happened to that big reset? welcome to "america live". i'm megyn kelly. president obama just leaving ireland for germany after wrapping up talks with g-8 leaders. they all agreed to promote peace talks on syria, but were unable to see eye to eye on specifics. at the heart of the matter, a deep divide between the west and vladimir putin. it was just four years ago that president obama's then secretary of state hillary clinton met with her russian counterpart and literally gave him a reset button. although it turned out to not say repet and he called her out