>> sandra: got anything for me? busy couple hours. happening on the house floor. the votes. >> bill: you're correct. >> shannon: ar >> sandra: are you all right? >> bill: i don't know. >> sandra: you are not 100 percent. >> bill: there is friday. we have got that. >> sandra: here is "happening now" starts now. >> jon: we start with a fox news alert. on fallout from president trump's latest comments about the russia investigation. good morning to you i'm jon scott. >> julie: i'm julie banderas. the president saying it over and over again there was no collusion and citing it as the reason why an interview with special counsel robert mueller couldn't and wouldn't be necessary. >> it's a democrat hoax that was brought up as an excuse for losing an election that frankly the democrats should have won because they have such a tremendous advantage in the electoral college, so it was brought up for that reason. but it has been determined that there is no collusion.

>> jon: chief white house correspondent john roberts who asked the question that elise silted thaeelicited that . >> president trump appears to be moving the goal post in terms of whether or not he will sit down for interview with special counsel robert mueller. legal sources tell fox news fully expects that mueller will ask for an interview sometime between now and wrapping up the investigation which they believe will be in the next few weeks. when the president was first asked about this june of 2016 he said yes he would sit down, absolutely, 100 percent. he was asked about it at camp david over the weekend in which he said yeah but reminded people he believes there was no collusion no, crime committed. when i posited the question to him yesterday he went in a different direction. listen here. >> it has been determined that there is no collusion and by virtually everybody. so we'll see what happens. >> would you be open to -- >> -- we'll see what happens. certainly i will see what happens. but, when they have no collusion and nobody has found any collusion at any

level, it seems unlikely that you would even have an interview. >> so the president now saying he doesn't see any reason why there would be any interview anyways. i spoke with sources who are close to the legal investigation. they say that despite what the president said yesterday, preparations are being made for an interview with robert mueller. they are looking at setting the ground rules, what mueller would be able to talk about and not talk about. still not to say that an interview will happen for sure. but they do believe it's more likely than not. at the same time as all of this is going on, the president blind sided republicans in congress and his own staff. taking up this fisa bill section 702. you saw paul ryan talking about that just before the top of the hour. this morning the president got up and tweeted out something very critical of the fisa law where he tweeted, quote: house votes on controversial fisa act today. this is an act that may have been used with the help of the discredited and phony dossier to so badly surveil and abuse the trump campaign by the previous

administration and others. you know, the president's staff led by homeland security advisor tom bossert has been selling for weeks now the importance of renewing this fisa or what's called 702 authority, pushing it as a critical tool in rooting out people who could do harm to our nation overseas. the reaction was immediate. adam schiff leapt to the floor to say well, because of what the president said, maybe we should put this whole discussion on hold. listen here. >> in light of the irresponsible and inherently contradictory messages coming out of the white house today, i would recommend that we withdraw consideration of the bill today to give us more time to address the privacy questions that have been raised. as well as to get a clear statement from the administration about their position on the bill. >> well, somebody clearly got in the president's ear because about two hours after he fired out the initial tweet, there was a clean-up on aisle 702 if you will. the president tweeting,

quote: with that being said i have personally directed the fix to the unmasking process since taking office and today's vote is about foreign surveillance on foreign bad guys on foreign land. we need it. get smart. referring to a directive he sent out yesterday to dan coyotes the director of national intelligence to develop a policy when it comes to requests to unmask the names of americans who are caught up in foreign surveillance. of course, that's what we are talking about in terms of the unmasking of trump administration or at least campaign officials. after the elections. the president clearly concerned about that. but, i will tell you, a lot of people around here scratching their heads as to what he was talking about this morning. jon. >> jon: it's always an interesting day there at that building behind you. >> to say the least. >> jon: john roberts our chief white house correspondent. thank you. >> thanks. >> jon: get more on the cleanup of aisle 702 now. let's bring in ari fleischer, former white house press secretary to president george w. bush and

a fox news contributor. let's start with the latest tweets first from the president. is he suggesting that that the fisa act may have been invoked or may have been used in spying on his campaign. but then he seemed to back away from it. what is he doing to this very complicated vote that's in the house right now? >> yeah, looks like it's a good day to take him seriously but not literally. if you are a lawmaker and you have to vote on the specific provisions of this fisa legislation pending, the president threw a curve ball at you. not helpful in the legislative process. but the broader point the president is making about fisa and about collusion and obviously it's hot on his mind, the president has merit when he talks about why the fbi investigating this in the beginning and the unmasking that took place i think still does remain objectionable. not a legislative issue. a personal issue. >> jon: he also tweeted well, let's go way back to yesterday morning when he put out this tweet. he said the single greatest

witch-hunt in american history continues. there was no collusion. everybody including the dems knows there was no collusion and yet on and on it goes. russia and the world is laughing at the stupidity they are witnessing. republicans should finally take control. that also left some people scratching their heads on capitol hill. republicans should take control of what? >> >> let me make two points. one the middle part of that tweet. when the president says russia is laughing. the world is laughing, there is a lot of merit to that. i think this investigation has tied the president and the executive branch's hands as far as how they want to deal with russia. it stopped them from doing things that in the normal course of foreign policy the president should be free to do when it comes to what he wants to be involved in russia or not, as far as america's diplomatic and other activities around the world. it's frozen it as for the republicans taking control, yeah, that part, i'm not sure about myself. again, i think that's more take it seriously not literally. i think what the president means is republicans should have his back.

there was no collusion. but, the congress has its own obligation to do an investigation. frankly, i think when all of these investigations are done, based on everything known to date, there won't be any collusion found. the president wants to get to that day fast. congress and mueller i hope get there as well rather quickly. >> jon: the president helped get the tax cuts and jobs act passed. the economy has been on a tear. the stock market has certainly been on a tear. would he, i mean, if you were advising him in the white house, would he be better to leave the russia investigation alone because it seems like every time he tweets about it, it just causes his political enemies to go into a fraz zell. >> well, on the one hand i think the president is doing a good job of making clear there is no collusion. i think people are inclined to agree with that the bigger issue though is if you are a republican running for re-election in 2018, you want to be known for the laws you have passed, the people you have helped. things have you accomplished. the growth of the economy.

the bonuses people are getting. the raising wages. that's what you want to be known for. policy, laws. the president wants to be known for himself. he wants to to be about him, his personality, his style. how he is changing washington. but he is not on the ballot in 2018. so i think the more republicans and the president can focus on laws, policies and the good things in the economy, the less on individual personalities including the president's, the stronger republicans will be in 2018. >> jon: and we will see what comes of the president's assertion that there is no collusion because multiple investigations still underway. ari fleischer, ari, thank you. >> julie: so, just weeks after the state's largest wildfire deadly mud slides slam into a southern california community killing 17 people. how survivors describe the devastation left behind.

>> julie: 17 people killed. eight others remain missing at this hour after devastating mud slides slammed into one of the wealthiest communities in southern california. 65 homes in montecito were destroyed and more than 400 damaged after these flash floods literally ripped through hillsides, stripping bare of vegetation by last month's thomas wildfire. thousands have been forced out of their homes as rescue crews now race to find any remaining survivors. >> it's apocalyptic. i had no idea that the devastation was like this. it sounded like a hurricane or freight train coming through. i can't quite believe it. >> julie: so far rescue crews have covered about 75% of the inundated area. >> any solution has to include the wall because without the wall, it all doesn't work.

you could look at other instances. look at what happened in israel. they put up the wall. they solved a very major problem. we need the wall. we have to have the wall for security purposes. security is number one. and so the answer is have to have the wall. >> jon: president trump sending a very clear message yesterday when asked if he would agree to a deal on daca with democrats, a deal that he says must include funding for a wall along our southern border. joining us now arizona congresswoman martha mccallie, vitally involved in this issue. she serves on the homeland security and armed services committees. so the president has said there are four things that are essential to any deal on immigration. he says you have got to have more money for border security. have you got to end chain migration. have you got to end the visa lottery, and then you have to come up with some kind of an arrangement on daca or the so-called dreamers. sounds pretty reasonable. >> yes. >> jon: are you inclined to

go along with what the president has to say and what about some in the opposing party? >> absolutely. we have been working on this now for months. and four of us members of congress and the house introduced a bill yesterday that essentially covers the president's priorities. look, i think republicans are generally open to some sort of legislative move related to the daca position, but there's a couple of priorities that have to be most important. one is we have to secure our border. i represent a border district. we have cartel trafficking through our communities. it's a public safety and national security issue. and we need to make sure we are not inserenit incentivizinge illegal activity coming across the border. we have seen how barriers work in a district like mine. also in our bill we got ending chain migration ending visa lottery. cracking down on sanctuary cities and kate's law. we have a mandatory everify and guest worker program. these are very reasonable things that are really we're

asking to tie together with any daca solution. and we're asking for a democrat colleagues to get more reasonable and start negotiating with us in good faith. >> jon: some democrats have said it's daca and nothing else. no strings attached. you have got to pass daca. have you got to find a way to allow the dreamers to stay in this country. what do you say? >> it's not happening. first of all, they are trying to hold our budget negotiations hostage to this issue. and it's our military that is suffering the most. january 19th is when the government funding ends. and our military needs certainty and funding in a readiness crisis we are in so they can keep us safe. i think it's unbelievable. i brought it up at the white house meeting that they are now trying to hold our military hostage so they can protect people who are here illegally. it doesn't make any sense and the american people aren't going to go for it the deadline is march 5th. support our military and fund the government and continue to negotiate in good faith. they have got to come off their unreasonable view that is daca or nothing. it's not happening. we've got to secure our border. we have got to end chain

migration, the visa lottery and have these other fixes in place so we make sure we are not in a situation with 800,000 more daca people in the next 1, 2, 5 years. that is a reasonable approach that we have taken. and we're asking our counterparts to meet us there. >> jon: but, as you know, there are many in the democrat party, i mean california just voted itself a sanctuary state. so, there are many who think that, you know, the notion of sanctuary cities is sacrosanct. >> and it's irresponsible. kate steinle's family will be the first to tell that you. because of the man who killed her who had been deported five times. and when the federal authorities were begging, please, let them come into the jail and get him, he was released again into the community. this is irresponsible and it is a public safety threat to communities around our country. and we shouldn't be playing politics with american lives like that. >> jon: the folks in your district support the idea of a wall or at least some kind of, you know, more effective border separation? >> those who live along the border will tell you when there was nothing before, no

physical barriers, it was a free for all. the cartels were just driving and coming across anywhere that they could. now we have some physical barriers and it has created a challenge. we need more. there are places where you can step right over it a border wall in places where it's appropriate combined with border patrol agents at the border and a good strategy, intel driven operations and technology so that we can intercept, track, and get these guys as they are coming over. so this is something those who live along the border deal with every single day, they are glad and i am, too, we now have a partner in the administration of the white house that is willing and able to secure our border once and for all. >> jon: as these negotiation goes along we will be keeping a very close eye on them. congresswoman martha mcsally congresswoman of arizona. thank you. >> thanks. >> julie: heist in the heart of paris thieves stealing millions from the ritz hotel and police say some of them are still on the loose.

when you combine ancestry's dna test with its historical records... ...you could learn you're from ireland... ...donegal, ireland... ...and your ancestor was a fisherman. with blue eyes. just like you. begin your journey at ancestry.com but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember.

>> jon: french police still searching for at least two thieves. it happened when three suspects entered the hotel through a side door. they were arrested but two other accomplices took the merchandise and got away. police say some of the items have been found. several high end jewelry stores in the area have been targeted in recent years. >> julie: so president trump escalating his attacks on fake news and renewing his call for a federal libel law. it's an effort basically some critics call futile because it's largely regulated under state law but a move the president says is important to help protect americans. listen. >> our current libel laws

are a sham and a disgrace and do not represent american values or american fairness. we will take a strong look at that we wanted fairness. you can't say things that are false, knowingly false and be able to smile as money pours into your bank account. >> julie: i'm joined now by howie kirtz. we know this law is a very personal one for the president. it's not for his war with the media. too we know any other reasons why he is backing this? talks about strength libel laws when he is unhappy with his coverage. he is unhappy right now with the wolfef money pour into the bank account. he has actually pushed any legislation given everything that's on his plate i don't see that happening any time soon. >> julie: most recently the president's lawyers sent a cease and desist letter, letters to the author

michael wolff and his publisher and that only back fired and prompted the publish tore release the book early. how could these libel laws prevent authors from writing tell-all's about not just the president but for anyone for that matter. >> that letter was a mistake because it gave, you know, zols of dollars in free publicity to the book. there is no prior restraint under our legal system. look, the president said that nobody, meaning journalists should be able to publish anything that is knowingly false. that's already, i agree with that. that's already covered by current libel law. even a public figure can file libel suit if it can be proven that somebody, a reporter, an author, published something with reckless disregard for the truth and with malice. but, as a practical matter, a president, the ultimate public figure can't be spending his time running around filing libel suits. >> he wants to file libel suits. he want to personally be able to file libel suits if somebody prints something knowingly wrong. there is where the fine line

between libel and crossing the line of the first amendment comes in to play. doesn't it? >> yeah. you know, look, donald trump in the past as a businessman has often threatened to sue and he has filed a couple suits against journalists. he sued a "new york times" reporter for saying in a book that he was worth less than donald trump had claimed. he sued chicago tribune critic about 30 years ago for saying that his proposed trump tower was an ugly monstrosity. but i think what we're really seeing here, julie, this is like a brush back pitch in baseball. the president trying to send a strong message to those who write about him, cover, pontificate about him will that he is going to push back hard what he sees is unfair, untruthful criticism. actually he has a much stronger tool than filing a libel suit. he has the bully pulpit and bitter pull fight push back against people like steve bannon, michael wolff would, you name it. >> julie: his private lawyers have trend lawsuits like you mentioned to many people. i mean, the list is huge.

several journalists are among them. but they have never actually followed through on them. i'm wondering what the message is there from the president and his legal team or by going ahead and pushing forward this libel law legislation in 2018 if he is hoping to then go back to those lawsuits, hoping that they would stick, knowing that they possibly wouldn't under the current law. >> well, the problem with the libel law legislation is it would have to in effect year turn a landmark supreme court ruling about, as i mentioned, reckless disregard, public figure and so forth. so i think that's unlikely. as far as actually filing, look, there would be a real disadvantage for the president or any politician in actually following through and filing a libel suit, legally entitled to do it, of course. that is that you open yourself up to discovery. you have to give a deposition. people in the white house might have to give a deposition. and also, rather than letting the original slander or libel or unfavorable or untruthful assessment kind of fade with the news cycle, the suit would keep it alive for months and you end up shining a very bright

spotlight on that which you are criticizing. >> julie: where does it infringe upon the freedom of the press. is that something that could be a concern here that would, i guess, halt this from passing? >> you know, freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment doesn't mean journalists can do anything, but it does mean under supreme court rulings that they can't be restrained in advance from publishing something even if it's untruthful. now, the remedy for any citizen, including public figures is then to gut to court and file a libel suit. again, for a president i think it's kind of impractical so instead what donald trump is doing is accepted ago very strong message about unfair journalism which as you may have noticed he tends to do every couple of days sometimes every couple of hours. july eulogy every couple of hours is more like it. >> jon: u.s. flexes its military muscle. what we just deployed to the pacific and the message it is sending to north korea.

plus, a guy going out to walk his dog gets attacked by a bear. he shares his terrifying story next. >> i'm really just happy to be alive. it could have been totally different story. hi, i'm joan lunden with a place for mom every day we hear from families who partnered with a senior living advisor from a place for mom to help find the perfect place for their mom or dad thank you so much for your assistance in helping us find a place. mom feels safe and comfortable and has met many wonderful residence and staffers. thank you for helping our family find our father a new home. we especially appreciate the information about the va aid and attendance program. i feel i found the right place. a perfect fit.

you were my angel and helped guide me every step of the way thank you. the senior living advisors at a place for mom partner with thousands of families every month, listening and offering local knowledge and advice to help find the best senior living communities across the country and it won't cost you a cent. this is a free service. call today. a place for mom. you know your family. we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. dad promised he would teach me how to surf on our trip. when you book a flight then add a hotel you can save. 3 waves later, i think it was the other way around... ♪ everything you need to go.

expedia.

first talks in more than two years. >> you have certainly problems with north korea but a lot of good talks are going on right now. a lot of good energy. i see a lot of good energy. i like it very much what i'm seeing. i think that we will have peace through strength. our military will be stronger than it ever was in a very short period of time. and that's my opinion. that's not the general's opinion but i think my opinion counts more right now. >> julie: joining us now michael hamlin director of foreign policy research at the brookings institution. thank you very much. michael, i want to ask you first of all what intelligence the president there was referring to and what is he sourcing his opinion on when he says that his opinion counts more than his general's opinions regarding where our military stands when it comes to north korea? what is he saying? >> hi, julie.

well, that's a tough question to open with. of course, it's always hard to try to figure out where donald trump mighting coming from with a comment like that. i think what he is trying to do is show a little bit of reagan-like optimism about the strength of the united states and, you know, obviously any politician is going to claim a lot of credit for what changes he or she has made. so donald trump is not unusual in that. he has been in office for 12 months. there have been some modernizations that have improvements in the u.s. military. i don't think they have been dramatic. and i think the military was pretty good when he got to the white house maybe that's what he is referring to when he is claiming there have been dramatic changes and the generals saying modest but important changes. either way, i don't think we have any major issues on the military front in terms of our capability towards north korea. >> julie: right. >> and the three b-2 bombers going to guam, to some extent that's almost normal crisis signaling that we have done over the years in regard to north korea.

>> julie: right. >> obviously now everything is on thin ice and people are very nervous about every move. i think the united states is trying to remind everyone just because these talks between the north and the south in korea are a little bit helpful. we are not going to let down our guard. they should not let down their enforcement of sanctions. a combination of trying to remind people of not trying to get hopes too high and relatively normal signaling behavior by the united states in this kind of a situation. >> julie: okay. we're obviously watching it closely and talks have began. it's not the first time that this has happened. so obviously we can't let our guard down. the u.s. air force with their hard line stance. and talk about, you know, the deployment of those capable b-2 stealth bombers and in addition to that 200 airmen to guam which is join ago number of b-1 bombers deployed there, what message exactly does it send about those talks? does this strengthen talks possibly between the north and the south? >> well, i'm -- in the broad

scheme of things, i'm prepared to wish president trump well that his overall posture towards korea a even though at times it scares me a little, may actually have created a sense of greater focus among some of the interested parties. and they, therefore, applied sanctions more tightly and, therefore, north korea is a little bit more prepared to talk. all that is possible. and so i think, you know, i wish the president well. i'm not going to get into a debate about how much credit he deserves because the main point is we are not yet anywhere near the finish line of where we need to be. in terms of those b-2 bombers, you can interpret in different ways. there are various kinds of attacks that they can carry out. nuclear or conventional as part of a big bombing campaign or as part of a very targeted bombing campaign maybe against north korea and nuclear or missile infrastructure. but usually when we put bombers on alert like this or move them around, we're not necessarily even trying to be too concrete or specific about the kind of threat or attack we might be threatening. people can read that in if they want.

we don't necessarily discourage them reading that in. but i think it's more just a general sense of reminding people about the need for vigilance. >> julie: let's not just forget also, as i move on, you know, the pacific island of guam is under direct threat. kim jong un says he has a missile, the nuclear capability to hit guam. so, certainly, sending a strong stance there on behalf of our military is essential. i want to switch gears now to iran because president trump is expected to keep sanctions relief for iran but he may be adding some penalties. first of all, how do you think sanctions are working out? >> i think that's the right policy. i think that the sanctions in regard to the nuclear program lifting of those sanctions has been a necessary part of the nuclear deal. we all know the nuclear deal is very controversial and very partisan but as secretary mattis and others have testified, now that it's sort of done and the rest of the world is relaxing the sanctions on iran, it doesn't make that much sense for us to reimpose sanctions from that

deal and risk losing the benefits of the deal. so, even most republican critics of the deal acknowledge there are some benefits. they just don't think the benefits were enough to justify all the lifting of sanctions. but the sanctions are now lifted and even if we reimpose them unilaterally, the rest of the world is not going to. i think president trump is right to look for other kinds of sanctions on issues like ballistic missile development, on issues like iran's support for terrorism. to your question about how well they are working, unfortunately those sanctions have not produced a change in iranian behavior yet which is probably as bad as it's ever been in those areas. >> julie: that's the whole point of sanctions, is it not in the answer to the question is no, it's not working well, because their nuclear ambitions are not being curbed and that is the whole point here. but the president is also expected to announce new sanctions linked to human rights issues which would obviously underscore u.s. concerns about iran's response to anti-iran government protests there.

>> i think it's generally the rit thing to do. your question is do sanctions only have any justification if they work? the sense of changing behavior immeet yatsly, i'm not sure that's the only purpose of sanctions. they allow us to establish a moral high ground and establish a cost so iran has to think about what it's doing. i think on the nuclear front, they have not crushed their ambitions, i agree with you. but they have changed their behavior because the nuclear deal requires that for the next 8 to 10 years are so. development of ballistic missiles, the iran nuclear deal does not require any change and they have not made any change. i still favor sanctions. i think president trump is right to stand with the people of iran, you know, especially if we can do it with our allies and make a concerted international support for those kinds of human rights, even if there is no immediate change. we have to stand on the right side of this issue morally in the first instance. >> julie: yep. i agree. michael o'hanlon, thank you very much.

great to see you as always. >> thank you, julie. >> jon: one man counting his blessings after he let's his dog out of the house and ends up in a life or death struggle with a wild animal. >> came outside and he was right there. and i tried to run and wasn't fast enough. ♪ and had twin boys. but then one night, a truck didn't stop. but thanks to our forester, neither did our story. and that's why we'll always drive a subaru. yes or no?gin. do you want the same tools and seamless experience across web and tablet? do you want $4.95 commissions for stocks, $0.50 options contracts?

$1.50 futures contracts? what about a dedicated service team of trading specialists? did you say yes? good, then it's time for power e*trade. the platform, price and service that gives you the edge you need. looks like we have a couple seconds left. let's do some card twirling twirling cards e*trade. the original place to invest online. there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients.

you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or

hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today. >> julie: a florida man survives a bear attack that ends with 41 stitches to his face. wow, the attack leaving the man with a facial laceration that required four hours of surgery. it happened tuesday night outside the man's home in naples. he says he stepped outside after letting his dog out, and that's when the four-footed bear lunged at him. >> i t. felt like somebody punched you. i didn't feel any cuts or anything. it wasn't until i got back inside looked down at my hand and saw blood all over. >> i tried to go like this to get back in and it just

didn't want one of these. and i kind of flew that way and got my thoughts together and somehow got the door. i can't believe i just got hit by a bear. >> julie: first ever pear attack in south florida they have set traps in the area to catch the bear. no luck yet though. let's hope they catch him. >> jon: a fox news alert it is one of the most contentious issues on capitol hill these days, but the house has voted to reauthorize the controversial section 702 fisa act. that's the foreign intelligence surveillance act that sprung up after the horrible attacks of 9/11. the law allows the nsa and other foreign surveillance agencies to tap into the communications of americans when they're communicating with foreigners overseas. it has been very controversial. the president himself tweeted out this morning that he felt that he had been caught up in fisa

surveillance. then he seemed to back off from that and tweet his support for it. at any rate, on a vote of 256 to 164, the fisa 702 act has been reauthorized. in the u.s. congress. democratic leaders facing some push back in their own party over negotiations for a bipartisan daca deal. some rank and file democrats want the focus to remain on so-called dreamers and border security. they fear top members of the party will give up too much to conservatives if the scope of immigration talks expands. but senate minority leader chuck schumer insists the fate of daca recipients remains the priority. >> i was encouraged by what the president said at the white house today. the tone was very good. but the devil lies in the details. and we need the president to follow up on this meeting

which boded well. first work on daca and those narrow issues and then move onto the broader, more comprehensive immigration reform. that's a plan we agree with. >> jon: let's bring in our panel michael star hopkins is a democratic strategist and attorney and contributor for the hill. steve cortes is a spokesman for the hispanic 100 who served on president trump's hispanic advisory council. he is also a fox news contributor. michael, it sounds like a little bit like chuck schumer wants to have his cake and eat it too. he wants to pass something for the dreamers but doesn't want to do any other negotiating on any other issue. that's not how politics works, is it? >> no. i think what chuck schumer is attempting to do is exactly what the president says he wants to do. he wants to focus on daca first. make sure that 800,000 individuals are protected and allowed to stay as they expected to be and then we can focus on issues like the wall. i think the big issue here is if we're going to spend $18 billion on a wall that isn't necessary, then we need to be able to also authorize programs like the

child healthcare program. >> jon: well, you know, sticking with you for a minute, michael, we just had congresswoman martha mac sally on from arizona she says the wall is very necessary and her district shows it. >> well, i will take the president's words. today he tweeted that immigration -- illegal immigration is at all-time low. those two things don't seem to correspond. >> jon: all right. steve, let's talk to you about the idea of settling on the daca issue, the so-called dreamers and then talking about the fence and some other issues? >issues? good politics? good idea? >> no. i think we need to do it all at once, john. by the way i really redirect the term dreamers. the left often tries to hijack the language. american citizens have dreams, too. i'm not going to call them dealers. however, i do want the daca adults and they are adults, too. the left tries to call them kids. i do want the daca adults protected. i think they are a different category of illegal immigrant. they didn't choose to come here. they were brought here as children. having said that, it's absolute necessity to get

full control of our broken immigration system. we have to end chain migration, end the visa lottery and absolutely build the wall. by the way the democrats are being so disingenuous on the wall because they themselves voted for border walls. chuck schumer, for example, as recently as 2013 voted for hundreds of miles of barricades of the border. back in 2006, a couple of senators named barack obama and hillary clinton voted for massive new border fencing. so, they were for this before it became politically expedient for them to suddenly oppose securing our border. >> jon: michael, it is true that for these children -- again, he is right. they are adults now the so-called dreamers were brought here as children illegally. somebody broke the law to bring them here, right? >> that is true. but those children, the people who were children at the time they didn't break the law and shouldn't have to suffer, go back to a country which they don't know, where they don't have family and don't have jobs. they are in all sense and purpose they are americans. so what i will say to steve's point about the wall, democrats have voted

to support technological advances in the wall. i support that what i don't support is a wall that covers over 200,000 miles of our border. that's not how we should spend our money. and republicans for a long time have talked about fiscal responsibility. let's do that let's be fiscally responsible. >> jon: i don't hear too many people from either party that thinks that folks grown up in america should be sent back to another country. there is a handful. it does seem like the fate of those brought here illegally, most legislators seem to want them to be allowed to stay here somehow. >> i agree. i think there is con ken success on that point. the president showed great compassion in extending for six months and telling congress let's do this the right way. not the way president obama did it he pretended he was a king and waived his scepter and did it by executive edict. that's the way our. i'm confident these people are going to be protected.

i think they should be protected. at the same time we have to protect the national security and economic security of the united states and our immigration system is not doing that right now. the majority of immigrant headed households in the united states are receiving some form of welfare. that's a tragedy. it's a policy misstep. it's not the reality that our parents and grandparents faced when they came here as immigrants wanting nothing but an opportunity. so we have got to fix it i love immigration, has to be legal, and let's be smarter about it and move to merit based. >> jon: steve cortes and michael starr hopkins, we have to leave it there. >> thank you. >> julie: the house passed fisa reauthorization despite the president tweeting about controversial program. jim jordan just got out of voting and he will join us live next. .

for incredible protection... ...that's surprisingly thin. so it's out of sight... ...and out of mind. always discreet. for bladder leaks. also in liners.

>> harris: sandra wants to know what i had for breakfast. coming up on outnumbered no collusion the president tweeted that again and again and suggested there is no need for special counsel robert mueller to interview him since he has not shown any collusion. is the president right or should he talk with the special investigator? >> sandra: plus lawmakers are pressing the question did the obama administration use that largely unverified anti-trump dossier to justify surveillance of the trump campaign? >> harris: our guest in the middle today outnumbered tells us we are asking the wrong question about that. i will ask him what the right question at the top of the hour. >> sandra: that did you have? >> harris: for breakfast? i had sweet potato pan cakes. ♪ >> julie: well, the house just voting to reauthorize the controversial fisa act which stands for foreign intelligence surveillance act. it allows, essentially, government surveillance on americans without a warrant if they are communicating with foreigners overseas.

joining me now ohio congressman jim jordan. great to see you, thank you so much for coming out. i know it's been a busy one. you just voted. how did you vote? >> i voted against reauthorizing it because of what you just described. the idea that you can actually look at american content and material without a warrant is not how the fourth amendment is supposed to operate. if you are going to query anything, if you are going to search anything, you are supposed to get a probable cause warrant. that's why i wish the amash amendment would have passed. it didn't. therefore i was one of those members who voted against the final bill. >> julie: one of the amendments you just mentioned that didn't pass was basically to vote on whether officials at the nsa or the fbi should be banned from searching for or reading private messages of americans without a warrant. something the government swept up under the 702 program. for those who voted against or voted down that amendment, what is the reasoning? >> well, i think you raised the right question. have you got to do this in

context. think about what we have witnessed from this government in the last several years. first, we saw the irs systematically at this target people for their political belief. now we have top people at the fbi. all the evidence points to the fact that they took a dossier, a democrat-financed, clinton-campaign financed dossier and dressed it up like legitimate intelligence. took it to the fisa court to get warrants to spy on americans and then names that were caught up in all that, those names were unmasked. in that context, it seems to me the least we could do was require the amash aamendment to go on the bill have you got to ge -- you have toget a wg at any americans content. >> jon: so the house has voted on the controversial fisa act as julie was just discussing with congressman jordan. it has been approved. let's listen now to the

speaker of the house, paul ryan. >> they are announcing plans -- all of this has happened in just 20 days. think about this. this is all before families have even started to see the benefits of lower tax rates, better withholding and a higher standard deduction. remember, the typical family of four, making $73,000 will get a $2,059 tax cut just this year. this is just getting started. we look forward to more good news for middle class families and our entire economy. i would like to turn to a very serious issue. as you know, we are working to secure the funding that is needed to rebuild our military. what does that mean? why do we spend so much time on rebuilding our military? why do we spend so much time talking about this? there are countless facts and figures that i could quote about the weakening of our military capabilities. let me just say a few things. less than half of the navy's planes can fly.

less than 10% of our army's combat brigade teams are ready to fight our air force is the smallest than it has ever been. chairman matt thorn bury buts it best when he says we have too few planes that can fly. too few ships that can sail and too few soldiers who can deploy. this is not just costing us military light. this is not just hampering our mission, this is actually costing us american lives. last year this nation lost 17 sailors on board the uss john mccain and uss fits gerald. readiness short falls were serious factors in these serious accidents which happened on aging ships with expired training certifications. every day that goes by without adequate funding is another day we are pushing our military past the breaking point. and it is a shameful situation we have a duty to address it and do right by the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect us here and abroad.

that is exactly what we are going to do questions? chad? >> happy new year. guess this is my first one, isn't it? [inaudible question] two part question. looks like we are going to have to do a spending bill next friday. >> i can't speak to you -- well, we are making good progress on caps negotiations. we are working with our counterparts on getting a cap agreement. the aproppers will need time once a cap is met. that's what mac is talking about need to get an agreement so we can get the aprotestoappropriators. >> i usually don't do that

but go ahead. he just used it up. >> you talk about the need to fund the military. if you are going to do another c.r. next week, isn't that kind of having it both ways because nothing effects the military more adversely. >> i think you are right about that we have to have a cap agreement in order to fund the military in order to give the appropriate. >> part one. >> is everyone going to use two parters for the year? just saying. >> request an interview with the president. >> i'm not going to go to hypotheticals on these things. i defer you to the white house. what's your part two. >> part two have you always said that administration officials should cooperate with the special counsel. >> i will defer to the white house on all those questions. that pertains to them. not this branch. >> mr. speaker, we understand that you spoke to the president after his morning tweet. is it your understanding that the president does not understand what this fisa bill is and the fact that his own administration was

supporting it? >> we speak on almost daily basis. it's well known that he has concerns about the domestic fisa law. that's not what we're doing today. today was 702. which is a different part of that law. title 7 not title 1. and title 7 which we are doing today is foreign terrorism, foreign soil. he knows that and he, i think, put out something that clarified that and his administration's position has been really clear from day one which is 7012 is really important. >> did he not understand what bill you were voting on today? >> he just has concerns about other parts of fisa. i think everybody knows that, too. >> can you respond to the letter from more than 100 ceos? -- by january 19th there will be a crisis in the workforce and is any immigration bill that passes the house need for [inaudible] >> say that again? need? [inaudible] >> look, i think we have that i think we will be able to put together a daca

compromise that has majority support from our party. you have to remember and i know i sound like a broken record. a, we want to fix daca. we do want to fix daca. b, we want to fix it while addressing the root cause problems so that we don't have a daca problem again. i mean, that's kind of common sense. that means the security measures that need to accompany any daca solution are necessary so that we have a final fix and not a temporary fix so we don't have the problem down the road again. that's common sense. that's rationale and that will be bipartisan, i believe. nicholson, i haven't seen new a while, sorry. >> another question about the tweets today. and then also the. >> which? just so you know i don't read every tweet. i saw the two today on fisa, is that what you are talking about? >> a lot of tweets -- any rate. there has been questions raised about the president's fitness for the