tv? martha: they're watching everything you're doing. bill: we'll have the speech. have a great weekend everybody. martha: "happening now" getting started right about now. see you back here on monday. bye-bye, everybody. jenna: start off with a fox news alert. big changes potentially how our government collects and stores information on hundreds of millions of americans. it is a highly anticipated, highly personal announcement by the president about the nsa we're glad you're with us everybody and what could be a historic day. jon: the president will make history i expect. i'm jon scott. we're looking live at the department of justice in washington d.c. we're waiting for the president to take to the podium and speak about the results of his administration's review of government surveillance programs. fox news has learned his proposals likely will include removing massive amounts of telephone data from government control. mandating court orders for individual searches moving forward and tighter restrictions when it comes to spying on world

leaders. jenna: certainly a big speech. covering a lot of ground. that's right. the nsa is facing backlash at home and abroad over its controversial surveillance programs. the spy agency sin tended to provide our leaders with intelligence on international terrorism and cybersecurity. to accomplish that it collects and processes data. the government first officially recognized nsa back in 1952. it ever offered support to fighters during the korean war and monitored movements of russians during the cuban missile crisis in 1962. the agency is headquartered outside our nation's capitol in fort meade, maryland. jon: last june, former nsa contractor edward snowden began leaking details about the nsa secret spy programs including one that scoops up and stores phone records an internet data virtually every american. days after the first leak the obama administration opened a criminal investigation. on june 21st the justice department filed espionage

charges against snowden. in august the fugitive-leaker received asylum in russia for one year. in october we learned the fed spied on dozens of world leaders including some of our closest allies. last month a presidential review panel offered 46 recommendations how to reform the way the agency operates. today the president will change which changes he wants to make. jenna: remarkable to think a few months ago none of this would have happened except for the man on the screen there edward snowden. no matter how we got there, here we are. let's bring in white house correspondent ed henry live at the white house with a preview for us. ed, how big are the changes we expected president to propose today? >> reporter: jenna, i suspect the white house will play this as major reform but there will be administration critics on the left, some on the right like rand paul saying in fact it does not could anywhere near being far enough to really shake up these programs because here's what we're learning is that the president is going to announce

basically that he believes that this bulk collection of phone data should be taken out of government hands as you suggested, no longer be run by the nsa but then the question becomes, does it go to the telecom companies? they have said they don't want to hold these records. that is very controversial for at&t, verizon and others to do that. should a third party be created so it is not in bought hands or telecom hands? what we are told the president will punt that decision to other policy makers in the administration as well as democrats and republicans on the hill. tom ridge, the first homeland security secretary in this nation's history was on fox a short time ago basically saying there are very legitimate privacy concerns because of those snowden leaks. >> because they were able to identify a terrorist attack they were able to prevent we would still have serious questions about fourth amendment, unreasonable search and seizure and civil liberties and privacy. >> reporter: bottom line though, of course it is another way to

look at this, how the president is coming at all of this, the evolution of a president, 2007, 2008, as a candidate he ran against the bush administration. railed against president george w. bush saying that a lot of these programs were out of control. he was going to rein them in. but as you say with the snowden leaks in recent months it suggested the administration has really not shaken up the programs and in some cases the programs have expanded jenna. jenna: one of the big philosophical, questions, if you will, ed, the balance between civil liberties tom ridge was talking about in the sound bite you used as well as national security. what is the concern, ed, that maybe some of the changes will make us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks? >> reporter: just this morning general michael hayden, the former director not just of the nsa but the cia was on nbc saying he fears some of the changes he is hearing about talking about with potentially putting these phone records in the hands of a third party or telecom giants he thinks this could go back to sort of a

pre9/11 mentality where the country could be more vulnerable to terror attacks. that is why republicans like john mccain, saying that the president can't make decisions on his own. it might be good to bring congress here. beyond executive action it might be the legislative branch to get involved to weigh this carefully. take a listen. >> congress will not have enough say unless we have a select committee like the 9/11 commission where we could come up with recommendations and, and, have legislation enacted. >> reporter: so bottom line we'll be hear froth president in a few moments. as you noted just not going to be about domestic surveillance. there were a lot of eyebrows raised about the surveillance programs dipping in and monitoring leaders in germany, brazil, mexico. that has caused a lot of consternation for the administration. we expect the president to have a lot to say about that, jenna. jenna: ed, thank you very much.

jon: for more on this, let's bring in chris wallace of course the host of "fox news sunday." let's talk about the audience. who is he going to be speaking do over there at the justice department, chris? >> well it is interesting because there was a lot of talk and there was even some talk in the administration since this involves the national security agency that he should go to fort meade, to nsa headquarters just outside of washington to talk to them. they're the people charged with keeping us safe. he decided no, since this is a lot of about privacy and civil liberties that he was boeing to go to justice department to talk about that. it is interesting, talking about the philosophical aspects of this, you talked about and jenna talked about during the campaign in 2008 he campaigned against a lot of this and then continued as president. jon: right. >> the fact is in his 2009 inaugural address he talked about the false choice between liberty and security. i think he found as president, it is not a false choice, it is a very tough choice. on one hand you have all this

information about people around the world who want to do us harm and on the other hand you want to protect civil liberties. it is a tough choice. he clearly feels the balance has gone too far in the security direction. he will talk about trying to move it back in the other trex. jon: the former constitutional law professor and senator railed against all kind of government snooping during the campaign but once you're the occupant of the oval office and getting the presidential daily briefing the world look as little different i suppose? >> absolutely. you're right. every day you get the best intelligence and best intercepts from the national security agency, exactly things he will be talking about today which some officials say put your hair on fire because it is so frightening to hear about all these plots underway around the world to try to do us harm. obviously a president, commander-in-chief's prime responsibility is to protect the homeland, protect the country but on the other hand particularly with these snowden leaks there is lot of concern

has the country too far and is it possible to protect the country and protect's people civil liberties and privacy. jon: we're told nobody will be satisfied by this speech. the privacy fans will say the president didn't do enough to preserve it and those who prefer robust national security will say the president has taken away too many of our anti-terrorism tools. chris, thanks for taking a look at it with us. we'll see you on "fox news sunday." >> let me quickly say we'll talk with the nsa director, general michael hayden and chairman of the senate judiciary committee, pat leahy. i suggest hayden will say it is too much and leahy will say it is not enough. jon: thanks, chris wallace you. >> bet. jenna: we're learning more about his plans for data that the government has gathered from millions of unsuspecting americans. he doesn't want the nsa to manage the stockpile according to these reports but it raises new questions who will get the

data drop? phone companies already said they don't want to be involved here. our chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge has more from washington. that is a big question about what happens to this data. what are the proposals? >> reporter: that's right, jenna, this decision to move the database out of the in. sa sounds very bold and it sound very dramatic but if the administration was paying attention to the testimony before the senate this week by presidential panel that put forward these 46 recommendations they would already know that the phone companies have balked at holding this data. let's listen. >> did you speak to the telephone companies to explore whether they are willing or able to hold the metadata? >> we speak with the telephone companies about that and they obviously would rather not hold that data. our judgment about the government holding the data is that the primary danger of the 215 telephony metadata program if it is used only in the way

its use is authorized. >> reporter: just to decode some of the language there when they talk about the metadata these are the phone logs, phone records, phone numbers, time, length of the call and this is under section 215 of the patriot act and the argument that the administration has put forward about this program is that it is not as nearly revealing as looking at contents of email but in fact we heard testimony again at that hear last week, when you're able to take a composite, someone's phone logs, who they are contacting, how often they're contacting these people you can build a social network for that person. the testimony indicated to congress, that this is just as revealing as looking at the content, general ma. jenna: obviously still a lot of questions, catherine. what about the risk to all of this? >> well this is one of the things that has been missing in the discussion by the white house about reform to the nsa programs. because what we also heard for the first time this week was

that a pretty detailed account having information about surveillance and data collection out there now from the snowden leaks has allowed adversaries of the united states and terrorist groups to modify their methods and their tactics and the head of the national counterterrorism center, this is the group created after 9/11 as a major hub for threat assessment, told an audience in washington this week and reads in part, quote, as a result of repeated disclosure of past several months about intelligence methods terrorists changed methods. some cases why should move conversations to another forum and other cases dropping out of our collection all together and this is not a exaggeration in fact. now i will just decode that language a little bit. when he says dropping out of the nctc's collection, that means they are no longer able to see what some of these terrorist groups are talking about and what they're planning. so the concern is that in some

ways our ability to understand how they're operating, how they're planning has gone dark or has been diminished. you take that and couple it with reforms or changes to the nsa program that make these programs harder to operate. it was described to me as almost a doubling down on the damage to the nsa, jenna. jenna: an important reminder. the enemy has adjusted already. we'll keep that in mind as we hear from the president. looks like eric holder will survive there. of apparently we're close, jon, hearing from the president. catherine, thanks for the important reporting today. jon: the arrival of the attorney general along with jim comey the director of the fbb-i, would suggest that the president is there at justice department. he will take the stage momentarily. we will hear revelations what he intend to do about the nsa spying controversy. let's get a preview from kt

mcfarland, fox news security analyst and former deputy secretary of defense in the reagan administration. we have a senior fellow at the homeland security policy institute at george washington university. so there are dueling national interests at stake here. kt, the president has to mollify those critics to think the nsa is out of control but he also doesn't want to weaken the agency so much that, you know, that there is some kind of a successful terror attack on this country. how does he split that very fine line? >> well, jon, it sound like he is probably splitting it pretty well if reports are true. the issues are three. one, do we continue to collect the data? two, where is the data kept? and three, who has access to the data? sound like the president is going to say we'll continue to collect it but we're going to keep it temporarily at nsa but let's keep it someplace else. i'm giving you, congress, the authority to decide where to

keep it. then finally to have access to it we'll have to go through a rigorous court system. jon, my problem with this all along has not been the traditional one. people worry, oh, well, privacy. i don't think anybody should assume you have privacy at all anymore. emails, phone conversations, where you go on the internet, that is now public knowledge. even if a country or company doesn't have ability to do it now, they will soon, so get prepared for that. the problem i have with it, if government collects it all, keeps it all and decides who has access to it all the opportunity and potential for abuse is there. why i don't like to say that about my own government, we have seen with irs going after conservative groups, fbi going after opposition reporters, that government sometimes has an enemies list and if we give them this knowledge to use that potentially for an enemies list i don't like that. so i think the president is probably doing a pretty good job cutting it down the middle. jon: there were reports after all this snowden information

broke that some nsa analysts were using those tools to snoop on ex-girl friend and ex-wives, that kind of thing. >> yeah. jon: michael, from the standpoint of a homeland security expert and a former, a guy who was formerly charged with ensuring the safety of millions of residents of the state of new york, what are your concerns what the president plans to say today? >> you know the history, jon -- jon: michael, i'm sorry, as soon as i gave you that question the president was introduced. let's listen to president obama. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. thank you so much. please have a seat. at the dawn of our republic a small secret surveillance committee borne out of the sons of liberty was established in boston and the group's members included paul revere.

at night they would patrol the streets, reporting back any signs that the british were preparing raids against america's early patriots. throughout american history intelligencehas helped secure our country and our freedoms. in the civil war union balloons reconnaissance tracked the size of confederate armies by counting the number of campfires. in world war ii, code breakers gave us insights into japanese war plans. when patton marched across europe, intercepted communications helped save the lives of his troops. after the war the rise of the iron curtain and nuclear weapons only increased the need for sustained intelligence-gathering and so in the early days of the cold war president truman created the national security agency ore the nsa, to give us insights into the soviet bloc and provide our leaders with

information they needed to to confront aggression and avert catastrophe. throughout this evolution we benefited from both our constitution and our traditions of limited government. u.s. intelligence agencies were anchored in a system of checks and balances. with oversight from elected leaders and protections for ordinary citizens. meanwhile totalitarian states like east germany offered a cautionary tale what could happen when vast, unchecked surveillance turned citizens into informers and persecuted people for what they said in the privacy of their own homes. in fact even the united states proved not to be immune to the abuse of surveillance. in the 1960s the government spied on civil rights leaders and critics of the vietnam war and partly in response to these

revelations additional laws were established in the 1970s to insure our intelligence capabilities could not be misused against our citizens. in the long twilight struggle against communism we have been reminded that the very liberties that we sought to preserve could not be sacrificed at the altar of national security. now with the fall of the soviet union left america without a competing superpower left terrorist groups in proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, placed more complicated demands on our intelligence agencies. globalization and the internet made these threats more acute as technology erased borders and empowered individuals to project great violence as we as great good. moreover these new threated new legal and new policy questions. for while few doubted the legitimacy of spying on hostile

states, our framework of laws was not fully adapted to prevent terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own, or acting in small idealogically driven groups on behalf of a foreign power. the horror of september 11th brought all these issues to the fore. across the political spectrum americans recognized we had to adapt a world which a bomb could be built in a basement and our electric grid could be shut down by operators an ocean away. we were shaken by the signs we had missed leading up to the attacks. how the hijackers made phone calls to known extremists and traveled to suspicious places. so we demanded that our intelligence community improve its capabilities and that law enforcement change practices to focus more on preventing attacks before they happened than

prosecuting terrorists after an attack. it is hard to overstate the transformation america's intelligence intelligence community had to go through after 9/11. our agencies suddenly needed to do far more than the traditional mission of monitoring hostile powers and gathering information for policy-makers. instead they were now asked to identify and target plotters in some of the most remote parts of the world, and to anticipate the actions of network that is by their very nature can not be easily penetrated with spies or informants. and it is a testimony to the hard work and dedication of the men and woman of our intelligence community over the past decade, we have made enormous strides in fulfilling this mission. today new capabilities allow intelligence agencies to track

who a terrorist is in contact with and follow the trail of his travel or his funding. new laws allow information to be collected and shared more quickly and effectively between federal agencies and state and local law enforcement. relationships with foreign intelligence services have expanded and our capacity to repel cyber attacks have been strengthened. and taken together, these efforts have prevented multiple attacks and saved innocent lives, not just here in the united states, but around the globe. and yet, in our rush to respond to a very real and novel set of threats, the risk of government overreach, the possibility that we lose some of our core liberties in pursuit of security also became more pronounced. we saw in the immediate

aftermath of 9/11 our government engaged in enhanced in interrogation techniques that contradicted our values. as a senator i was critical of several practices such as warrantless wiretaps and all too often new authorities were institutessed without adequate public debate. through a combination of action by the courts, increased congressional oversight, and adjustments by the previous administration, some of the worst excesses that emerged after 9/11 were curbed by the time i took office. but a variety of factors have continued to complicate america's efforts to both defend our nation and uphold our civil libertyies. first, the same technological advance that is allow u.s. intelligence agencies to pinpoint an al qaeda cell in yemen ore an email between two

terrorists in the sahal mean many routine communications around the world are in our reach. at a time when more and more of our lives are digital that prospect is disquieting for all of us. second, the combination of increased digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of sifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads that may thwart impending threats. it is a powerful tool. but, the government collection and storage of such bulk data also creates a potential for abuse. third, the legal safeguard that restrict surveillance against u.s. persons without a warrant do not apply to foreign persons overseas. this is not unique to america.

few if any spy agencies around the world constrain their activities beyond their own borders. and the whole point of intelligence is to obtain information that is not publicly available. but america's capabilities are unique and power of new technologies means that there are fewer and fewer technical constraints on what we can do. that places a special obligation on us to ask tough questions about what we should do. and finally intelligence agencies can not function without secrecy. which makes their work less subject to public debate. yet there is an inevitable bias, not only within the intelligence community but among all of us who are responsible for national security to collect more information about the world, not less.

so in the absence of institutional requirements for regular debate, and oversight that is public as well as private, or classified, the danger of government overreach becomes more acute. much. and this is particularly true when surveillance technology and our reliance on digital information is evolving much faster than our laws. for all these reasons i maintained a healthy skepticism towards our surveillance programs after i became president. i ordered that our programs be reviewed my by national security team and our lawyers and in some cases i ordered changes in how we did business. we increased oversight and auditing including new structures aimed at compliance. improved rules were proposed by the government and approved by the foreign intelligence surveillance court. and we sought to keep congress

continually updated on these activities. what i did not do is stop these programs wholesale. not only because i felt that they made us more secure but also because nothing in that initial review and nothing that i have learned since indicated that our intelligence community has sought to violate the law or is cavalier about the civil liberties of their fellow citizens. to the contrary, in an extraordinarily difficult job, one in which actions are second-guessed, success is unreported and failure can be catastrophic, the men and women of the intelligence community, including the nsa, consistently follow protocols designed to protect the privacy of ordinary people. they're not abusing authorities in order to listen to your private phone calls or read your

emails. when mistakes are made, which is inevitable in any large and complicated human enterprise they correct those mistakes. laboring in obscurity, often unable to discuss their work even with family and friend, the men and women of the nsa know that if another 9/11 or massive cyberattack occurs, they will be asked by congress and media why they failed to connect the dots. what sustains those who work at nsa and our other intelligence agencies through all these pressures is the knowledge that their professionalism and dedication play a central role in the defense of our nation. now, to say that our intelligence community follows the law and is staffed by patriots is not to suggest or on

felt complacent about the potential impact of these programs. those of us who hold office in america have a responsibility to our constitution and while i was confident in the integrity of those who lead our intelligence community, it was clear to me in observing our intelligence operations on a regular basis that changes in our technological capabilities were raising new questions about the privacy safeguards currently in place. moreover, after an extended review of our use of drones in the fight against terrorist networks, i believed a fresh examination of our surveillance programs was a necessary next step in our effort to get off the open-ended war footing that we have maintained since 9/11. much for these reasons i indicated in a speech at the national defense university last may that we needed a more robust public discussion about the balance between security and

liberty. of course what i did not know at the time was within weeks of my speech an avalanche of unauthorized disclosures would spark controversies at home and abroad that have continued to this day. given the fact of an open investigation, i'm not going to dwell on mr. snowden's actions or his motivations. i will say that our nation's defense depend in part on the fidelity of those entrusted with our nation's secrets. if any individual who objects to government policy can take it into their own hand to publicly disclosed information then we will not be able to keep our people safe or conduct foreign policy. moreover the sensational way in which these disclosures has come out has oven shed more heat than

light and revealed actions that to our adversaries that may impact us in ways we may not snow for years to come. regardless how we got here, the task for us here now is to simply than repairing the -- instead we have to make important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protection that is our ideals and our constitution require. we need to do so not only because it is right but because the challenges posed by threats like terrorism and proliferation and cyber attacks are not going away anytime soon. they are going to continue to be a major problem. and for our intelligence community to be effective over the long haul we must maintain the trust of the american people

and people around the world. this effort will not be completed overnight and given the pace of technological change we shouldn't expect this to be the last time america has this debate but i want the american people to know that the work has begun. over the last six months i created an outside review group on intelligence and communications technologies to make recommendations for reform. i consulted with the privacy and civil liberties oversight board created by congress. i've listened to foreign partners, privacy advocates and industry leaders. my administration has spent countless hours considering how to approach intelligence in this era of diffuse threats and technological revolutions. so, before outlining specific changes that i have ordered, let me make a few broad observations that have emerged from this

process. first, everyone who has looked at these problems, including skeptics of existing programs recognizes that we have real enemies and threats and that intelligence serves a vital role in confronting them. we can not prevent terrorist attacks or cyber threats without some capability to penetrate digital communications, whether it is to unravel a terrorist plot, to intercept malware that targets the stock exchange, to make sure air traffic control systems are not compromised, or to insure that hackers do not empty your bank accounts. we are expected to protect the american. that requires us to have capabilities in this field. moreover we can not unilaterally

disarm our intelligence agencies. there's a reason why blackberries and iphones are not allowed in the white house situation room. we know that the intelligence services of other countries, including some who feigned surprise over the snowden disclosures, are constantly probing our government and private sector networks and accelerating programs to listen to our conversations and intercept our emails and compromise our systems. we know that. meanwhile a number of countries, including some who have loudly criticized the nsa, privately acknowledge that america has special responsibilities as the world's only superpower. that our intelligence capabilities are critical to meeting these responsibilities and that they themselves have relied on the information we obtained to protect their own people. second, just as ardent civil libertarians recognize the need

for robust intelligence capabilities those with responsibilities for our national security readily acknowledge the potential for abuse as intelligence capabilities advance and more and more private information is digitized. after all the folks at nsa and other intelligence agencies are our neighbors. they're our friend and family. they have got the electronic bank and medical records like everybody else. they have kids on facebook and instagram. and they know more than most of us the vulnerabilities to privacy that exist in a world where transactions are recorded and email and text messages are stored. even our movements can increasingly be tracked through the gps on our phos. third, there was a recognition by all who participated in these reviews that the challenges to our privacy do not come from government alone. corporations of all shapes and sizes track what you buy, store

and analyze your data and use it for commercial purposes. that's how those targeted ads pop up on your computer and smartphone periodically. but all of us understand that the standards for government surveillance must be higher. given the unique power of the state, it is not enough for leaders to say, trust us, we won't abuse the data we collect. of. for history has too many examples when that trust has been breached. our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty can not depend on good intentions of those in power. it depends on the law to constrain those in power. i make these observations to underscore that the basic values of most americans when it comes to questions of surveillance and privacy converge a lot more than the crude characterizations that emerged over the last several

months. those who are troubled by the existing programs are not interested in repeating the tragedy of 9/11. and those who defend these programs are not dismissive of civil liberties. the challenge is getting the details right and that is not simple. in fact during the course of our review i have often reminded myself, i would not be where i am today were it not for courage of dissidents like dr. king who were spied upon by their own government and as president a president who looks at intelligence every morning, i also can't help but reminded america must be vigilant in the face of threats. now fortunately by focusing on facts and specifics rather than speculation and hypotheticals, this review process has given me and hopefully the american people some clear direction for

change. and today i can announce a series of concrete and substantial reforms that my administration intend to adopt administratively or will seek to codify with congress. first, i have approved a new presidential directive for our signals intelligence activities both at home and abroad. this guidance will strengthen executive branch oversight of our intelligence activities. it will insure that we take into account our security requirements but also our alliances, our trade and investment relationship, including concerns of american companies, and our commitment to privacy and basic liberties. and we will review decisions about intelligence priorities and sensitive targets on an annual basis so that our actions are regularly scrutinized by my senior national security team. second, we will reform programs

and procedures in place to provide greater transparency to our surveillance activities. and fortify the safeguards that protect the privacy of u.s. persons. since we began this review, including the information being released today, we've declassified over 40 opinions and orders of the foreign tell against surveillance court which provide judicial review of some of our most sensitive intelligence activities including the section 702 program targeting foreign individuals overseas and the section 215 telephone metadata program. in going forward i'm directing the director of national intelligence in consultation with the attorney general, to annually review for the purposes of declassification any future opinions of the court with broad privacy implications and to report to me and to congress on these efforts.

to insure that the court hears a broader range of privacy perspectives, i'm also calling on congress to authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an independent voice in significant cases before the foreign intelligence surveillance court. third, we will provide additional protections for activities conducted under section 702 which allows the government to intercept the communications of foreign targets overseas who have information that's important for our national security. specifically i'm asking the attorney general and dni to institute reforms that place additional restrictions on government's ability to retain, search and use in criminal cases communications between americans and foreign citizens incidentally collected under

section 702. fourth, in investigating threats, the fbi also relies on what's called national security letters which can require companies to provide specific and limited information to the government without disclosing the orders to the subject of the investigation. these are cases in which it is important that the subject of the investigation such as a possible terrorist or spy, isn't tipped off but we can and should be more transparent in how government uses this authority. i therefore directed the attorney general to amend how we use national security letters so that this secrecy will not be indefinite. so that it will terminate within a fixed time unless the government demonstrates a real need for further see expresssy. we will also enable

communications providers to like public more information than ever before about the orders that they have received to provide data to the government. this brings me to the program that has generated the most controversy these past few months, the bulk collection of telephone records under section 215. let me repeat what i said when this story first broke. this program does not involve the content of phone calls or the names of people making calls. instead it provides a record of phone numbers and the times and length of calls. metadata that can be queried if and when we have a reasonable suspicion that a particular number is linked to a terrorist organization.

why is this necessary? the program grew out of a desire to address a gap identified after 9/11. one of the 9/11 hijackers, khalid mindar, made a phone call from san diego to a known al qaeda safe house in yemen. nsa saw that call but it could not see that the call was coming from an individual already in the united states. the telephone metadata program under section 215 was designed to map the communications of terrorists so we could see who they may be in contact with as quickly as possible. this capability could also prove valuable in a crisis. for example, if a bomb goes off in one of our cities and law enforcement is racing to determine whether a network is poised to conduct additional attacks, time is of the essence. being able to quickly review phone connections to assess

whether a network exists is critical to that effort. in some the program does not involve the nsa examining the phone records of ordinary americans. rather it consolidates these records into a database that the government can query, if it has a specific lead. a consolidation of phone records that the companies already retain for business purposes. the review group turned up no indication that this database has been intentionally abused and i believe it is important that the capability that this program is designed to meet is preserved. having said that, i believe critics are right to point out that without proper safeguards this type of program could be used to yield more information

about our private lives. and open the door to more intrusive bulk collection programs in the future. there are -- they're also right to point out although the bulk telephone collection program was subject to oversight by the foreign intelligence surveillance court and has been reauthorized repeatedly by congress, it has never been subject to vigorous public debate. for all these reasons i believe we need a new approach. i am therefore ordering a transition that will end the section 215 bulk metadata program as it currently exists and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata. this will not be simple. the review group recommended that our current approach be

replaced by one in which the providers or a third party retained the bulk records with government accessing information as needed much. both of these options posed difficult problems. relying solely on the records of multiple providers, for example, could require companies to alter their procedures in way that is raise new privacy concerns. on the other hand, any third party maintaining single consolidated database would be carrying out essentially what's a government function but with more expense, more legal ambiguity, potentially less accountability, all of which would have a doubtful impact on increasing public confidence that their privacy is being protected. during the review process some suggested that we may also be able to preserve the capabilities we need through a combination of existing authorities, better information-sharing and recent

technological advances but more work needs to be done to determine exactly how this system might work. because of the chae ordered thae transition away from the existing program will proceed in two steps. effective immediately we will only pursue phone calls two steps removed from a number associated with a terrorist organization instead of the current three. and i have directed the attorney general to work with the foreign intelligence surveillance court so that during this transition period the database can be queried only after a judicial finding, or, in the case of a true emergency. next, step two, i've instructed the intelligence community and the attorney general to use this transition period to develop options for a new approach that

can match the capabilities and fill the gaps that the section 215 program was designed to address, without the government holding this metadata itself. they will report back to me with options for alternative approaches before the program comes up for reauthorization on march 2th. and during this period i will consult with the relevant committees in congress to seek their views. and then seek congressional authorization for the new program as needed. now the reforms i'm proposing today should give the american people greater confidence that their rights are being protected even as our intelligence and law enforcement agencies maintain the tools they need to keep us safe. i recognize that there are additional issues that require further debate. for example, some who participated in our review as well as some members of congress would like to see more sweeping

reforms to the use of national security letters. so we have to go to a judge each time before issuing these requests. here i have concerns that we should not set a standard for terrorism investigations that is higher than those involved in investigating an ordinary crime. but i agree that greater oversight on use of these letters may be appropriate and i'm prepared to work with congress on this issue. there are also those who would like to see different changes to the fisa court than the ones i proposed. on all these issues i'm open to working working working with congress that we have a broad consensus how to move forward and i'm confident we can come up with approach to shape our security needs while upholding the civil liberties of every american. let me now turn to the separate set of concerns that have been raised overseas.

and focus on america's approach to intelligence collection abroad. as i have indicated, the united states has unique responsibilities when it cops to intelligence collection. our capabilities help protect not only our nation but our friends and our allies as well. but our efforts will only be effective if ordinary citizens in other countries has confidence that the united states respects their privacy too and leaders of our close friends and allies deserve to know, i want to know what they think about an issue, i will pick up the phone and call them, rather than turning to surveilance. in other words, just as we balance security and privacy at home, our global leadership demands that we balance our security requirements against our need to maintain the trust and cooperation among people and leaders around the world.

for that reason the new presidential directive that i've issued today will clearly prescribe what we do and do not do when it comes to our overseas surveillance. to begin with, the directive makes clear that the united states only uses signals intelligence for legitimate national security purposes and not for the purpose of indiscrimminantly reviewing the emails and phone calls of ordinary folks. i've also made it clear that the united states does not collect intelligence to suppress criticism or dissent, nor do we collect intelligence to disadvantage people on basis of their ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs. we do not collect intelligence to provide a competitive advantage to u.s. companies or u.s. commercial sectors. and in terms of our bulk collection of signals intelligence u.s. intelligence

agencies will only use such data to meet specific security requirements. counter-intelligence, counter terrorism, counterproliferation, cybersecurity. force protection for our troops and allies and combating transnational climb including sanctions of nations. in this directive i have taken the unprecedented step extending cerp protections we have -- certain protections we have for the american people to people overseas. i have directed the dni in consultation with the attorney general to develop the safeguards which will limit duration we can hold personal information while also restricting the use of this information. the bottom line is, that people around the world, regardless of their nationality should know that the united states is not spying on ordinary people who don't threaten our national

security. we take their privacy concerns into account in our policies and procedures. this applies to foreign leaders as well. given the understandable attention that this issue has received, i made clear to the intelligence community that, unless there is a compelling national security purpose, we will not monitor the communications of heads of state and government of our close friends and ally. and i have instructedded my national security team as well as the intelligence community to work with foreign counterparts to work with cooperation in ways to rebuild trust going forward. now let me be clear, our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of government as opposed to ordinary citizens around the world in the same way that the intelligence services of every other nation does.

we will not apologize simply because our services may be more effective. but, heads of state and government with whom we work closely and on who's cooperation we depend should feel confident that we are treating them as real partners. and the changes i've ordered do just that. finally, to make sure that we follow through on all these reforms, i am making some important changes to how our government is organized. the state department will designate a senior officer to coordinate our diplomacy on issues related to technology and signals intelligence. well will appoint a senior official at the white house to implement the new privacy safeguard that i have announced today. i will devote the resources to centralize and improve the process we use to handle foreign requests for legal assistance,

keeping our high standards for privacy while helping foreign partners fight crime and terrorists. i've also asked my counselor, john podesta, to lead a comprehensive review of big data and privacy. this group will consist of government officials who along with the president's council of advisors on science and technology will reach out to privacy experts, technologists and business leaders and look how the challenges inherent in big data are being confronted by both the public and private sectors. whether we can forge international norms how to manage this data, and how we can continue to promote the free flow of information in way that is are consistent with both privacy and security. for ultimately what's at stake in this debate goes far beyond a

few months of headlines or passing tensions in our foreign policy. when you cut through the noise, what's really at stake is how we remain view to who we are in a world that is remaking itself as dizzying speeds. whether it is the ability of individuals to communicate ideas, to access information that would have once filled every great library in every country in the world, or to forge bonds with people on the other side of the globe. technology is remaking what is possibility for individuals and for institutions and for the international order. so while the reforms that i have announced will point us in a new direction, i am mindful that more work will be needed in the future. one thing i'm certain of, this debate will make us stronger.

and i also know that in this time of change, the united states of america will have to lead. it may seem sometimes that america's being held to a different standard. and i will admit the readiness of some to assume the worst motives by our government can be frustrating. no one expects china to have an open debate about their surveillance programs. or russia to take privacy concerns of citizens in other places into account. but let's remember, we are held to a different standard precisely because we have been at the forefront of defending personal privacy and human dignity. as the nation that developed the internet, the world expects us to insure that the digital revolution works as a tool for individual empowerment, not

government control. having faced down the dangers of totalitarianism and fascism and communism, the world expects us to stand up for the principle that every person has the right to think and right and form relationships freely. because individual freedom is the wellspring of human progress. those values make us who we are. and because of the strength of our own democracy, we should not shy away from high expectations. for more than two centuries our constitution has weathered every type of change because we have been willing to defend it, and because we are willing to question the actions that have been taken in its defense. today's no different.

i believe we can meet high expectations. together let us chart a way forward that secures the life of our nation while preserving the liberty that is make our nation worth fighting for. thank you. god bless you. may god bless the united states of america. [applause] thank you. jenna: the president speaking just about 45 minutes on his ideas for the nsa moving forward, starting off with the defense of that agency saying that the agency is really made up of everyday americans, our friends and neighbors, who are trying to protect our national security. he then went on to some specifics what he would like to see done as far as reforms for this agency. one of the big topics we'll be discussing in minutes ahead for us will be whether or not he as president has the power to make these changes or he needs congressional approval much that will be key to what reforms actually come into play in the future. just one quick note because this is a very key one for many

americans, section 215, that is the bulk metadata collection program. the president says that he wants to change that program. he does not want government holding on to that information but he also wants to be able to use that information as needed. so he has established a panel or is asking a panel for suggestions about what sort of transition we can use to move that data from underneath the umbrella of the nsa to something else. a big question. let's bring in kt mcfarland, fox news national security analyst and former deputy secretary of defense in the reagan administration. michael balboni, a senior fellow in the foreign policy institute at george washington university. a lot there. we'll go over throughout the day today. k. it what stands out to you? what is the main headline for you. >> he is kind after long-winded today. he as a candidate who was

against data collection. he sort of righted himself and come to a different place. he kept a lot of the bush collection. we'll still collect this stuff. we'll probably collect more stuff. other countries will collect this stuff. what he said we'll not keep it in the united states government hand anymore. we're going to try to find, work with congress. work with the industry. we'll find a safe place to keep it which isn't necessarily what the multiple different service providers but isn't necessarily at nsa either. he said two other things. we'll have a lot more safeguards how we access it. whose records we'll fine and toss to foreign leaders, we'll still listen about the major decisions you're making, we'll still do that but we'll not really pursue your personal conversations unless we have some overriding national security interests to do it. so i think he actually, i've been pretty critical, jenna of president obama in the past. jenna: sure. >> i think he has really done a

good job with this, thought fully laid it out and kept in place and put in safeguards. jenna: let me follow up, kt. there was a lot there as well. your analysis, this magical safe place where data exists where americans can feel confident civil liberties are not being violated. where would that be? what would that look like? >> we don't know. that is the big question. i was at a meeting with the head of nsa about a month ago. he talked about, you know, if you guys have a better idea, if you don't like the fact that nsa is collecting and keeping this data, tell me what's a better idea? how can we safeguard security as well as safeguard privacy rights. i don't think anybody as has the answer. there are problems with the multiple service providers keeping it. different places, different records. different places, different records. there's obviously a problem with the federal government keeping it, the opportunity and potential for government abuse of it. and then if there's some new entity created, that has problems at well. that is going to be the big

question. we're going to have to see what happens next. jenna: i'm curious for your thoughts as well, michael. the d. of homeland security was a new d., now as a department of more than 200,000 people working in that agency, ask one of the big questions we've had to tackle is whether or not our bureaucracy works against us. so i'm curious on your observation of what the president had to say and whether or not you agree with the road it seems we're taking with more say, and about more panels, additional committees and new agencies. >> similar to ct. but in terms of governance, it comes down to who is going to be making the decision as to what is a compelling interest to go, in fact, go and surveil the foreign nationals overseas. but what was fascinating about what the president talked about, he obviously smacked snowden, he smacked russia, and he also said

after all the reforms, tomorrow these collections systems are pretty much going to look very much, very similar to the way they do today. a lot of we have to take a look in the future. the question becomes for folks who use this information, who make life and death determinations as to when to send troops, how to resource our homeland security apparatus, what is going to be changed in terms of the information we are going to be deriving? i think what the president said was after review, we found the complaints were unfounded in terms of just a cavalier attitude by the intelligence community. one of the big problems here has been we have reformed our intelligence community after a scandal. you know, in the 1960s he referred to that, 9/11. well, here we have to take a look at maintaining the capability and enhancing it to protect this country while also addressing, tipping the hat to the privacy concerns. jenna: just real quick, michael, what are you going to be

watching for then? we're receiving some responses from senators, but where does it go from here? >> well, congress is now going to weigh in. you already heard senator mccain who said we have an oversight responsibility. you have the reauthorization coming up in march. this is going to be front and center for everybody in the intelligence community and in the intelligence committee to say, all right, well, what did you mean about this? the example you pointed out, where would you reside this and what type of protections could you put in place to enhance and safeguard more than you have now? that's really going to be the key focus when the senate and the congress get to, takes a look at this. jenna: big questions but room for creative thinking, and maybe we'll be better off, because that's the goal here, to be better off, safer and also protect our civil liberties. kt, michael, great to have your observations and analysis. appreciate it very much. >> thank you. >> thanks, jenna. jon: for more on this topic, let's bring in howard kurtz, host of "media buzz." how are the media going to react

to this speech of the president? >> i don't have to gaze very far because you look at the new york times today has an analysis saying not that president obama has radically changed what he said as a candidate about the need to rein in the surveillance state, all candidates go through this and then when they become president, there's this collision between their high-flown rhetoric and the gritty realities of governing. so i don't think the media, jon, are really holding the president's feet to the fire. maybe he's doing the right thing, but the truth is he's trying to occupy a middle ground here between security and terrorism, but he's not doing very much to rein in this massive eavesdropping, and that's not going to satisfy the left. jon: curious to me that in almost every other speech he makes these days, he rails against congress as being a place where decisions can't be made and, you know, the congressional leaders can't be trusted to get this things done. in this circumstance he says i'm going to go to congress and dutch most of it in their lap. >> right. although the president, obviously, has a lot of leeway

to do some of this new his executive powers. what strikes me is that the media seem to have tuned out what has been a pretty robust debate in this country about how much is too much, the metadata, the eavesdropping on the e-mails, now we learn the nsa has access to text messages people send. but really the president's been distracted by the ed snowden melodrama, is he a traitor, will he be brought to justice, does he stay in russia. and there's been a lot less maybe because people have moved on or decided even when they go shopping or google, people gather so much of their personal information. it seems to me the president is more about writing politics of and the snowden part and not the very real, important debate about how far should a government go in the name of protecting us on national security from possible terror attacks in invading potentially the arrives of millions of americans? jon: yeah. and you point out in your foxnews.com column that you're finding that people just aren't all that fired up anymore about some of these revelations about

what the nsa has been up to. >> yeah. i thought there would be more of a public uproar. i mean, you look at the polls, and a lot of people are uncomfortable with the degree to which the nsa is going on some of these measures, but you don't sense the intensity. it's almost like everybody was kind of shocked, decided to move on, maybe the media decided to move on. i do wonder, again, whether or not the press is cutting the president a lot of slack here because he is changing his position despite the modest reforms that he's talking about here in studying it and having somebody else collect the telephone metadata. you wonder whether another president might be treated with such generosity. but, again, i don't see the intensity of the public outrage, and maybe that's reflected to some degree, jon, in the coverage. jon: all right. we'll look for more from you on foxnews.com. howard kurt, thank you. >> thank you. jenna: there's always politics involved in this sort of policy change or suggestion that we hear and see from high ranking lawmakers and the president as

well. joe trippi is joining us, he's a fox news contributor. as far as the politics of this, joe, politico in an article week said that this snooping saga has been a loser for the president in nearly every respect. do you agree with that, and what do you think about what the president had to say as far as coming forward and trying to suggest changes to this program? how will it play out? >> well, the president certainly, i think, started to take credibility hits when the nsa scandal sort of broke, when this whole thing broke, because i think people started to worry about their privacy. but the problem is he's trying, he's trying to take this middle ground between national security and civil liberties, and my guess is politically that's going to lead to attacks from both sides of that argument. there are going to be plenty of people who are concerned about national security who worry and have doubts about whether the president's gone too far no matter how modest these changes are. there'll be people on the civil liberties side on the left who

think he hasn't gone far enough. he isn't dismantling anything, he isn't changing anything. or the changes that he has are too modest and aren't protecting civil liberties enough. so i think -- jenna: and, joe, what do you think? i mean, what do you think as a democrat that's watching the president who has advised high profile politicians? what do you think? do you think he, that was the right way to go today even though it's challenging and he'll get fire on all sides, or do you think he made a mistake? >> no, no. i think he did what he had to do. i think the speech was thoughtful, and i think also putting concern getting congress involved in looking at this, i know throwing it on congress, but i think, look, the only way you're going to bridge national security and civil liberties is to have congress involved in it. but i do think politically there are going to be attacks from both -- i mean, the partisans on both sides have plenty of reasons, and i mean left and right which is really interesting about in this issue, there are plenty of people on

the right and plenty of people on the left who think government shouldn't be eavesdropping, shouldn't be -- you know, that are protective of civil liberties. it's the vast middle of america that i think is sort of where howard kurtz was talking about, sort of moved on and are thinking there's nothing in my calls or e-mail that anybody would be interested in. but that's a slippery slope, and that's what this is all about. so politically i think, look, there was a no-win for the president on this. i think he did what a president needs to do to get the ball rolling, to get this debate actually out in the open. jon: joe, speaking of getting the ball rolling, our catherine herridge who, of course, covers homeland security for us from washington, points out that it's not very likely much of anything is going to change dedespite this 45 minute speech because there is very little he can do by executive order in changing the way the national security agency works. that has to be done in the congress, and congress, as you

know, is a very polarized place right now. >> absolutely. and that's where i think now this thing has been thrown out into that partisan environment where, look, there are going to be legitimate national security concerns with where this is going. those are going to attack the president for opening this up, and, you know, wring their hands about how this is going to hurt national security. and like i said, on the left you'll have plenty of people like myself included who believe there should be more civilian and more civil liberties pushback on this and expected that from the president. a lot of people voted for him when he was that senator running for the presidency on a promise of dismantling these programs. and so you've got those two forces now, and, you know, he's not a lame duck, but there's going to be an open presidency in 2016, and i think you'll see positioning on both sides of

this, of those primaries. jon: you have to wonder or whether snippets of this speech are going to wind up in campaign commercials coming up in the midterm elections. joe trippi, we have to say good-bye. thank you. >> thanks, jon. jon: so reaction is pouring in to what the president just said. we will share some of that with you, plus analysis from former attorney general alberto gonzales and a look at how the media's been covering this with judy miller. that's coming up. [ sneezes, coughs ] i'veot a big date, but my sinuses are acting up. it's te for advil cold and sinus. [ male announcer ] truth is twon't relieve all your symptoms. new alka seltzer plus-d relieves more symptoms than any other behind the counter liquid gel. oh what a relief it is.

really? 25 grams of protein. what do we have? all four of us, together? 24. he's low fat too, and has five grams of sugars. i'll believe it when i -- [ both ] oooooh... what's shakin'? oops. [ female announcer ] as you get older protein is an important part of staying active and strong. ensure high protein... 50% of your daily value of protein. low fat and five grams of sugars. see? he's a good e. [ major nutrition ] ensure high protein. ensure. nutrition in charge! ..

jenna: california's governor jerry brown declaring a drought emergency in california, and this is as we learn about that dangerous wildfire in the southern part of the state that continues to burn today. fire crews are making progress against this massive blaze that's really feasting on the dry brush in the foothills near los angeles. the fire has consumed more than two and a half square miles of land and five homes so far and

thousan"s are still evacuated. william la jeunesse is live in glendora, california, where this fire is burning at this time. what's the latest? >> reporter: well, jenna, you mentioned the drought that the governor just declared, look at this. this is the san gabriel river in the middle of the rainy season, this is unheard of, not a drop of water in it, and that, of course, is why you're seeing a firñ this late in the season. the fire is officially 30% contayned, but they did make significant progress overnight i'm going to show you an aerial to give you a big picture. there are hot spots in the mountains right now in the angeles national forest. but they are dropping water, helicopters, all morning so they don't develop or threaten homes. back live i want to show you where we are. we're at the western edge of the fire, and that santa ana wind has been coming down here for the last 36 hours or 24 hours, if you will, and driving it to

the west. well, they have stopped the fire right here as you can see. there are homes on the other side of this hill, and, well, there's a little flare-up right there, but they're basically trying to recollect the homes -- shp &c% evacuated. yesterday this fire did explode from 0 to 125 acres in, basically,less than an hour. 40 mile-an-hour winds. very high temps, in the 80s, and record low fuel moisture. it was like the hillsides were covered with newspaper, hadn't caught fire in 45 years. five homes destroyed and 17 structures. jenna: william, the drought conditions are obvious, as you showed, and great job by scotty, by the way, your cameraman giving us the full picture of everything. >> reporter: sorry. jenna: no, no, it was great. how do they think this fire started? >> reporter: well, there are three men in custody. we are on the fifth day of a red flag warning. that means no camping, no fires

and no national parks. i mean, all the parks are closed, if you will. these guys are up there, they got a campfire going, they're throwing paper in the fire, it gets out of hand, they run down the mountain, somebody sees them, they get arrested. they're being held right now on half a million dollars bail and they'll decide today whether there'll be federal or state charges. and i just want to show you one picture. these super scoopers, they're on loan from canada. they were supposed to go back on december 31st, the state held them for another 30 days, thank god we did. they inhale, if you will, 1600 gallons, drop it on the fire, then cycle back in just minutes, very effective yesterday at knocking down this fire and protecting homes. back to you. jenna: it's good that we have that, william. thank you very much. we're are stay on -- we'll stay on this story as it develops. jon: as we mentioned, california governor jerry brown says they're dealing with severe drought across much of that state. take a look at a satellite photo, it shows just how bad the situation really is.

on the left, the snow cover last year at this time, on the right what it looked like earlier this week, almost no snow in california at all. it is one of the driest years ever for jenna's home state. jenna: it was beautiful over the christmas holiday. that's what you get, right? there's no rain, there's no snow, beautiful clear, sunny skies. jon: hope they get some moisture. jenna: well for the first time this decades, an american journalist is expelled from russia after working there on and off for 40 years. officials in russia now call his presence undesirable. they're not letting him back in the country. we're going to seek to david satter live about what's going on. and how concerned should we be about security issues surrounding the obamacare web site? coming up, we're going to speak with one expert who just told congressional lawmakers the problem is only getting worse. >> healthcare.gov is not secure changed since the november 19th testimony. in fact, from our november 19th testimony, it's even worse. ♪

♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] you don't have to be a golf pro to walk like one. ♪ when you walk 10,000 steps a day, its the same as walking a professional golf course. humana, proud supporter of health and well-being. [dog] larrwanna play?arry?ng a professional golf course. [announcer] a healthy dog is a playful dog. [dog] let's do this larry. [announcer] help him keep those muscles while he loses a few pounds with beneful healthy weight. de with wholesome rice,real c, even accents of vitamin rich ggies. it's calorie-smart and tastes so good. beneful healthy weight...from purina.

♪ ♪ jenna: well, "happening now," the latest on first american journalist expelled from russia since the cold war. the name is david satter. he's lived and worked in russia on and off throughout his 40-plus year career, and he's written three books on russia as well as testified before congress on russia/u.s. policy and issues. david most recently was working in moscow as an adviser for radio-free europe, radio liberty. it's funded in part by the u.s. government. he's openly criticized the russian government and vladimir putin in the past. that's not new. what is new is this: several weeks ago as david went through the often routine motions of renewing his visa, the russian authorities told him his

presence in the country was undesirable and would not allow him to return to his apartment in moscow. while his personal belongings and work remain very much in russia, david is currently in london where he joins us now, and it's great to have you on the program, david. i want to start with the big issue just to get it out of the way. russia says this visa issue is an issue of your own making, that you brought this on yourself. what's your response to that? >> well, they know that's not true. in fact, they gave the real reason for the expulsion in kiev where a russian diplomat in their embassy told me that the competent organs, which is the term that's used for the fsb, that's the security police, have decided that your presence on the territory of the russian federation is undesirable, and you're barred from entering russia.

now, that was the real reason. then there were three weeks in which they wouldn't give any reason, and they told the american embassy that, in fact, according to russian law no reason is given in the case of visa refusals. a couple of hours after they head that statement for the last time -- made that statement for the last time, they put up a reason on the foreign ministry web site, but it was a false reason which is all of this talk about visa infractions. there was an incident that they created and, in fact, had no significance whatsoever, and they are using that as a smoke screen to try to conceal what they've really done, which is exclude someone because of their writing and reporting. jenna: david, why now do you think that's happening to you after 40 year ors of traveling and working in russia? >> well, for one thing, i've had problems in the past. there was an attempt to expel me in 1979, there were visa denials

in 1988 and 1990 and some fairly serious confrontations with the russian authorities over my access to country. but what's going on right now is obviously an attempt on the part of russian authorities to suppress anybody who they think inside of russia or outside of russia may be a threat to their, to their power. for whatever reason, they've decided that i fit in that category. jenna: what do you make of the timing? it's ironic to talk to you about this today. here we had a huge speech from the president on the nsa issues in our country. edward snowden, who's responsible for those leaks -- who is now safely residing in russia -- ask you're not -- and you're not allowed in the country. so what do can you make of the timing considering all of that as well as it's just several

weeks ahead of to olympic games when you're going to have thousands of journalists flocking to russia. >> well, it's clear that expelling me was a very high priority. the if it hadn't been, they would have waited until after to olympics. as far as when edward snowden is concerned, i was anxious to find him, and he was nowhere to be seen. as he explained to "the washington post," he likes to be indoors. i guess after 30 days in the transit lounge in the airport, a person needs to spend another four or five months indoors. but in any case, you know, if he was so interested in digging up evidence of abuse by secret services, i would have been happy to have suggested some paths of investigation concerning the russian secret services. fortunately, he was inaccessible. but the -- jenna: let me ask you, let me ask you this.

vladimir putin is granting an interview to abc news, a much-sought-after interview ahead of the olympics. if you had one message to send to putin, what would it be? >> well, i mean, considering that we're talking about to olympics, my message to vladimir putin would be based on the way this which the russians -- in which the russians have acted in previous hostage situations. i would say to vladimir putin if there's a hostage-taking situation, you are the one who insisted on sew chi as the site of to olympics, you are the one who's responsible for bringing visitors or and sportsmen to a war zone. if any hostages are taken in a terrorist incident, your first obligation is to protect the lives of the hostages and not to open fire indiscriminately as you've done on the previous occasions. in effect, massacring the hostages. that's what i would tell him, and i would be sure he got the

message. jenna: that is a claim you've had and you've written about in a few other situations over the years. i'd love to have you back, but let me ask you this, david, before we have to say good-bye. what would you say to vladimir putin about your issue and about getting kicked out of the country? >> well, i -- he, you love to use the western press, you love to use western freedoms, you love to -- you're the head of a regime whose members have their property and their bank accounts in the west. but it has to work both ways. if you want to take advantage of western freedoms, you have to respect them in russia itself. jenna: are we doing enough, david? i know the embassy's involved trying to help you get back in the country. we've also talked about this russian reset that has been a policy that the obama administration has raised over the last several years. how do you feel that you're being helped by your own

government? are you being helped enough? >> well, time will tell. i think that the embassy is making an effort. the ambassador has filed a protest, and i believe he's pursuing this as vigorously -- i think it's also very important more american society, for the congress, for the press to recognize that this is a fundamental issue of free speech, and it affects not just us, it affects the russian people as well, and it affects our foreign interests, our public diplomacy, and we should take it seriously. jenna: we certainly are on this show, david. it's great to have you on our program. we look forward to having you back, and we'll continue to follow your story and what happens next. thank you so much for the time this evening. >> thank you. thank you. pleasure. jon: for his part, russian president vladimir putin is raising eyebrows, making some new comments on an emotional and troal issue. mr. putin telling volunteers that gay people should feel welcome, but they must, quote:

leave children in peace, end quote. he's referencing a law that bans so-called homosexual propaganda among minors. critics say the ban puts limits on the right to protest during the games, and some rights activists have called for a boycott of the games over russia's mistreatment of gay people. jenna: certainly a lot of issues ahead of to olympic games. in the meantime, the president says he's growing frustrated with extensive coverage of the nsa scandal. has the mainstream media also grown tired of the story? judy miller and lauren ashburn are next. ♪ [ male announcer ] wt kind of energy is so abundant, it can help provide the power for all th natural gas. ♪ more than ever before, america's electricity is generated by it. exnmobil uses advanced visualization and drilling technologies to produce natural gas... powering our lives... while reducing emissions by up to 60%.

energy lives here ♪

jon: well, president obama is reportedly growing tired of sorries about in sa spying. it has been more than six months news of the agency's sweeping surveillance practices broke. in an interview hitting newsstands today the president told "people" magazine he is quote, frustrated generally about the snowden disclosures and about some reporting around it. have the media also grown tired of the story? is that journal listic malpractice? let's bring in our panel. judith miller a pulitzer prize-winning reporter and fox news contributor and. laura is a analyst for media buzz and fox news contributor as well. you saw the piece in your former employer "the new york times" which the author says mr. obama was surprised at the uproar that ensued over the snowden

revelations. why would a president be surprised at those kind of reports? >> would you rather be surprised, jon, than irritated which is clear what he was today. it is interesting to me the president singled out to be three parties to be particularly irritated that. one was edward snowden, two was china and three was russia and the press of our first characterization of a program that was almost entirely secret before edward snowden announced it to the world before his leaking. of course he is unhappy. but, mr. president, better get used to it. there will be a lot more of this. jon: the piece from gregory lawrence, said surprised at uproar particularly so that many americans did not trust him and goes on from there. >> it is shocking that he is actually surprised because in 2007, didn't he say, no more illegal wiretapping? and now all of awed sudden that he is president and it is a

situational difference here, he is saying, well, let's work with this. let's put all this issue on to congress to saw what we come up with. this is a flip-flop of some sorts i would say. so it isn't surprising that people don't trust him. jon: judy, you know, president bush essentially during the bush years after 9/11, there were no other successful attacks on american soil. so when president obama campaigns against what he called, illegal wiretapping and everything else, during the campaign, all of a sudden wins the oval office things look a little different when you're on the other end of the pen. >> exactly jon. len downey of the reporters committee did a survey of this administration's attitude and policies toward the press and concluded this is is one of the least transparent administrations operating since richard nixon, from the former head of "the washington post" is really quite a condemnation. i think the president today did

endorse greater open mess and transparency how these collection programs work. yes, he has punted this to congress to help him solve this problem of balancing national security and privacy and civil rights, but you know, he is not surprised. he is just putting up here a very artful defense. and i was very impressed by the thoughtfulness of the speech and the attempt to balance, split the difference if you will between the civil liberties community and the nsa. thatthat is a polly that will probably make no one happy. jon: lauren, you probably saw the columbia journalism review, did that survey of media coverage of the nsa scandal. and their conclusion, just paced -- based on some buzzwords and key words used and terrorism and safety, that kind of thing, their conclusion is that the of nsa snooping rather than revulsion against it. >> well, it says that they tilt to the right in their coverage

and they did a lexus nexus search of four newspaper, "usa today", "the l.a. times", et cetera, washington post, and said, that these words, security and terrorism, were used more than words like civil liberties which is kind of a bizarre argument to me. if you are presenting a news story, you have to show both sides of the story. so of course you're going to say civil liberties on one side or security and terrorism on another but, there is is also in the journalism community i think a fear that you're not going to be hawkish enough based on what has happened with 9/11. jon: yeah. there may be that fear in the oval office as well. lauren ashburn, judy miller. thank you both. >> thank you, jon. jenna: now a little little business news. u.s. home construction tapping the brakes slightly last month. the commerce department says housing starts were down nearly 10% in december from the previous month due to decline in single family homes and

apartments t can happen this time of year. december could be a tough time for building considering the weather and everything else. still builders closing out the year with the biggest gains since 2007. so that is good news overall for the economy. jon: reaction is pouring in after president obama's big speech on changes to nsa surveillance programs. you probably saw it here in our first hour of "happening now." up next former attorney general alberto gonzales weighs in with his reaction, a key player defending those policies under president george w. bush. what does he think about what president obama proposes? >> bill, did you listen in on the president's speech on nsa? >> did i listen in? they're listening in right now, aren't they. >> wait, he says they don't actually listen in on americans phone calls but, you can't actually see me right now, can you? see you? nope. >> that's a relief. >> we'll see you at the top of the hour.

and his new boss toldm two ings -- cook what you love, and save your money. joe doesn't know it yet, t he'll work his way up from busser to waiter to chef before opening a restaurant specializing in fish and game om the great northwest. he'll stt investing early, he'll find some good people to help guide him, and he'll set money aside from his first day of work to his last, ich isn't rocket science. it's just common sense. from td ameritrade.

getting the right nutrition isn't always easy. first, i want a way to help minimize my blood sugar spikes. then, a way to support heart health. ♪ and let's not forget immune support. ♪ but now i have new glucerna advance with three benefits in one. including carbsteady ultra to help minimize blood sugar spikes. it's the best from glucerna. [ male announcer ] new glucerna advance. from the brand doctors recommend most. advancing nutrition for diabetes. we are thinkers. the job jugglers. the up all-nhts. and the ones who turn ideas into action. we've made our passions our life's work. we strive for the moments where we can s, "i did it!" ♪ we are entrepreneurs who started it all... with a signature. legalzoom has helped start over 1 million businesses, turning dreamers into business owners. and we're here to help start yours.

are you flo? yes. is this the thing you gave my husband? well, yeah, yes. the "name your price" tool. you tell us the price you want to pay, and we give you a range of options to choose from. careful, though -- that kind of power can go to your head. that explains a lot. yo, buddy! i got this. gimme one, gimme one, gimme one! the power of the "name your price" tool only from progressive.

jon: back on this story now, president obama calling for major changes in the nsa collects and especially stores data on millions of americans. let's get reaction now from alberto gonzales, former attorney general under president george w. bush who also played a major role in defending the legality of the nsa surveillance program during his tenure. president obama, we are told, is angry over some of the nsa revelations, the reporting of them, especially public perceptions of them, says people have it all wrong. is he right about that, general gonzalez? >> well, i think when you talk about a very secretive, classified program of the united states government the information that's out there publicly is often inaccurate and incomplete. what i can say that the administration's doing what it does in order to collect information which is important for the protection of our country. we do so in a way, at least we

did so with respect under president bush, and i believe also with respect to president obama, we do so in a way that is consistent with the constitution, consistent with our values. that is a charge that began with president bush, continuing with president obama, to do what we can to protect this country in a way that is constitutional. jon: he seems to have said that the program that he inherited from the bush administration essentially is going to remain in place but he will change the way the data gets stored. do you see it that way? >> it's hard, it's hard to discern exactly where this will end up. i was very pleased to see the president remind the american people about the importance of this kind of activity. very pleased that the president acknowledged the fine work of the nsa and all those in government involved in protecting america. very pleased to hear the president acknowledge that, based upon their review, they don't find systemic abuses of these authorities.

but i was also, and i think the president was right, in acknowledging the importance of additional safeguards, additional checks on these activities. so reassure the american public, but in terms of the actual specifics, it was, very hard to identify what, where the administration is going to go an obviously congress have a role in deciding, you know, how these activities should be conducted going forward. jon: what about the collection of metadata? there are a lot of people out there, senator rand paul, one of the most prominent spokespeople for this point of view who say that the government has no business and no need for collecting that stuff. he is very concerned about the abuse of it. can you assure the american people that kind of thing will not be abused? >> well, i can't, i can not assure anyone that, that someone might not go rogue, for example and do something intentional but i certainly with respect to the activities in the bush administration, i won't comment

on any specific activity that is occur during the bush administration because many of those still remain classified today. but we worked very hard to insure there was appropriate oversight, appropriate guidance from the general counsel, from the inspector general. reporting to the congress and so, a lot has been put in place, additional safeguards have been put in place as president obama acknowledged today, to insure the protection of people's civil liberties. jon: a point i have touched on earlier and i just want to get your reaction to it, as a candidate when he was running for office and campaigning in large part against things like the patriot act, he talked about illegal wiretapping of mention, that kind of thing, as president he left in place many of those programs he seemed to criticize what is your take on that? >> well, i think you get a little bit wiser when you put your hand on that bible, all of a sudden lives of every single american. you're responsible for that. you have a responsibility to

exercise those tools, those capabilities that this great country has, so long as it is consistent with the constitution. so, i for one, haven't been in the oaf having been in the oval office with president bush, understanding dangers and threats this country deals with every day, i'm pleased that the president does his job insuring the security of our country. jon: alberto gonzales, former attorney general. good to have you on. come back with us again. >> thank you, jon. you bet. jenna: still ahead, growing concerns that obamacare could be an easy target for hackers. several experts sounding the alarm. we'll speak with one next. >> understand how we're still discussing whether or not the website is insecure or not. it is. there is no question about that. >> it is insecure? >> it is insecure, absolutely, 100%.

jenna: back to the health care law and some new concerns over security flaws that could put private information at risk. top cybersecurity officials testified yesterday on capitol hill, some citing major flaws that healthcare.gov remains to vulnerable to hackers more than three months after the rollout. david kennedy was at yesterday's hearing and warned lawmakers that the security situation is getting worse. he is president and ceo of trustedsec he returns to the program. david, great to have you back. >> i appreciate it. jenna: we played a little sound of you before the break. you said the website is 100% insecure. the government continues to say it is 100% secure. so how can both sides be so far apart on this. >> well, this is a exactly what i was worried about when we first did our testimony in november. as soon as we finished with it,

hhs came out with statement, hey, everything is perfectly fine, nothing to see here. what we did differently this time i contacted a number of well-respected security folks in the industry and seven of them that are really well-known. put them under non-disclosure agreement and sent all my findings. all of us were completely nan news that the sight is not secure. extremely poor from coding practice perspective. they haven't done anything to address it. it has gotten worse since the last testimony. there is big gap between what the government perceives what is vulnerable and what we see being vulnerable. jenna: what the government has said, the democrats have said there hasn't been any major attack and there would be. if it is insecure as it is surely someone would have already stolen information. what is your response to that. >> as of november 19th there was testimony that the security operations center which would actually detect these type of attacks had not been established or developed yet. they didn't even have the capabilities to detect any type of attack. i would agree with the statement. they don't know they have been attacked or compromised.

to them everything is perfectly fine in the world. we can say the vulnerabilities are definitely symptommic problems an attacker can use to break into the site and steal sensitive data such as personal information t also has hooks into irs, dhs, number of government agencies which also contain your information. things are really bad. jenna: walk me through for a moment. obviously i don't have a lot of expertise building websites or inspecting them for our safety and i'm sure a lot of our viewers are like me. you hop on a website, in some cases you assume security. >> sure. jenna: when you're walking down the street in any city in this country you might see police officers and patrolling in cars checking things out to make sure things are okay. is there something similar happening on the website run by the government? is there anyone patrolling on a regular basis to make sure anyone using it is safe? >> i don't think so. there are no clear indicators that is happening. hhs definitely stepped it up to get more additional security lingo. they have security companies

effectively doing basic testing it appears but nothing checking the doors, making sure your house is locked or secured. so all that information on the inside is well-exposed and open. what this shows is, all the symptoms we can see, we can not actually hack the website. that would be illegal and violate federal law. jenna: of course. >> we see problematic symptommic areas show a larger problem underneath the site itself and we should be concerned. jenna: you bring up home security is another example. that is good one. home security is up to individual, to make sure their place is secure as they like it to be. is there anything that you see that an individual can do who may have to use this website? otherwise they will get fined, they will be taxed? is there anything an individual can do in this situation in your opinion? >> i think there is two things. one thing is monitor the credit and your identity. there are some services out there that do very good job of that. unfortunately your identity being stolen is much worse than what happened with target and credit card gets breached.

personal information is longer term. you have problems years to come when people take credit of your identity. monitor to make sure nothing is crazy going on there speak to your local congressman and congresswoman to try to see if you can get more issues raised around concerns on healthcare.gov. what happened yesterday, it turned into a complete hogwash of a bunch of stuff that didn't even matter about security. they turned it into very political, you know, type of tirade. i give chairman smith a lot of credit for keeping it kind of in line. it was a mess. they didn't want to talk security. they wanted to talk about other things. jenna: tend to happen. we see that many a time in these type of committee hearings. david, great to have you back on the program. >> thank you so much. appreciate it. jon: remember that old statement, trust us, we're from the government. mystery in the making in outer space. what one of our mars rovers stumbled on to. that is rocking the science world right now [ female announcer ] season after season, no matter the occasion... your home's the place everyone gathers.

so be ady with a stouffer's lasagna. it's the mouthwatering recipe that keeps them coming back. stouer's. madeith care for your family. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... well another great thing about all this walking i've been doing is that it's given me time to reflect on some of life's biggest questions. like, if you could save hundreds on car insurance by making one simple call, why wouldn't you make that call? see, the only thing i can think of is that you can't get any... bars. ah, that's better. it's a beautiful view. i wonder if i can see mt. rushmore from here. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

bill hemmer and alisyn camerota will be furious with us if we go over our allotted time and we don't have time to bring you the rover and mars story. >> stranger things happening on earth. >> maybe monday. >> thanks for joining us. >> america news headquarters start right now. >> guys, right on time. starting with a fox news alert. major changes in how the nsa stores the phone records of millions of americans. welcome to hq, i am alisyn camerota. >> and i'm bill hemmer. president obama laying out the ideas and there is plenty of reaction already. ed happen row has that from the north lawn, ed? >> mixed reaction. this was kind of a middling approach from the president trying to see all sides of the issue and coming down, basically in the middle. we have folks on the left and democratic senators who are pressuring the president for a

media generally tilted in favor