has been done and we anticipate even more as we continue our assessment is more revelations ocher. before these unauthorized disclosures we were always conservative about discussing the specifics of our collection programs based on the truism that the more adversaries know about what we are doing the more they can avoid our surveillance. the disclosures for better or for worse have lowered the threshold for discussing these matters in public so to the degree we can discuss them we will.

debate. that's the fact despite the large amount of americans information being collected under the intelligence law. those law lack any substantial public reporting requirements. how many information are being collected. it doesn't have to tell americans how many of their investigate is actually seen by national security officials. what is more the companies that

plots and of the 54 third -- 13 had some nexus to the u.s.. would you agree with that or no. >> yes. >> testimony stated that there is only one example of a case where but for section 215 following records collection terrorist activity was stopped. is mr. english write? >> he is right. i believe he said to chairman. i may have that wrong but i think he said two and i would

i believe he said to chairman. i may have that wrong but i think he said two and i would like to point out it could have only applied to 13 of the cases because of the 54 terrorist plots or events only 13 occurred in the u.s.. >> i understand that but what i worry about is that some of the statements that all is well, we are talking about massive massive collection.

we did give them insights. they didn't take all the data. i don't know what and why. >> is what you're doing being reviewed by the fisa court? >> not in all cases. some of these cases that deal with executive order 12333 that fall under the business records would be. these would not be reviewed but they are reviewed by the administration and audited by our people. >> my time is up. you have raised well -- >> one of the problems we have is this -- with this program is there is not enough transparency. >> thank you. i worry. you say it's executive authority not fisa court authority. does anybody have oversight of other than the executive branch? >> congress too. >> has this been imported to the

committee of intelligence. as noted in the foreign intelligence bill they would be required to seek approval of the vocational data but i would just say this may be something that is a future requirement for the country but not right now because when we identify a number we can give it to the fbi when they get probable cause they

give you time to add that if you would like but could you go back to my question? is the nsa compiling profiles and dossiers of the american people? >> in every case for valid cases let me go to general alexander. >> those reports are inaccurate and wrong. >> "the new york times" is wrong in its article? >> absolutely. here are the facts. what they have taken is the fact that we do take data to enrich it. what is not in front of the statements is the word foreign.

we did give them insights. they didn't take all the data. i don't know what and why. >> is what you're doing being reviewed by the fisa court? >> not in all cases. some of these cases that deal with executive order 12333 that fall under the business records would be. these would not be reviewed but they are reviewed by the administration and audited by our people.

technologically possible and just because something may be deemed technically legal does not mean it is the right thing to do. this summer many americans learned for the first time section 215 of the u.s. patriot act that for years has been secretly interpreted to authorize the interpretation of americans phone numbers on an unprecedented scale. the american public learned more about the government's collection of internet content data through the use of

it's handled differently..

>> the at 09 order is still being used? >> that that is correct but their cases i need to clarify this and want to make sure this 100% good. there cases where the fbi light started terrorist threat in the united states. if there's a terrorist threat in the united states and they get a warrant to go after that ari fisa then we can use fisma to go after that. we can look at hostages overseas u.s. hostages. we can look at this to attract industries because u.s. companies are considered u.s. persons under this law that are the targets of terrorist communications. what we are doing we are not creating social networks. we are doing that and the insinuation that we are doing that is flat wrong. i take exception to that. taking a classified document that dealt with foreign

i so regret what is happening. i will do everything i can to prevent this program from being canceled out. there's going to be a bill in my committee to do it. there's a bill in this committee to do it. and unfortunately, very few of us sat on this committee when george came in in june of 2001 and said we anticipate a strike, but we don't know what. we don't nowhere. we don't know when.

data through the use of section 702 of fisa. since the committees last hearing on these revelations in late july we have learned a great deal more. we have learned the nsa has committed -- implementation of section 215 and section 7702 of fisa. in this way without a warrant collected content of tens of thousands of -- americans. nsa violated a fisa order under

today. doctor -- general alexander when asked if 20 records of all americans would testify i believe quoted as a nation's best interest to put all code records into a lock box and weaken certain when the nation needs to do it. besides the phone records were the records to believe the federal government should be doing?

of cases involving section 215 and i found to be unconvincing. the deputy director of the nsa himself acknowledge that at our last hearing a couple of weeks ago that there is no evidence section 215 phone records collection have --

with particular pride in my alma mater georgetown for his representative among those witnesses. i hope this will inform a legislative efforts. we all agree we have to ensure our nation's security. we also have to restore the trust of the american people in our intelligence community. fundamentally we have to protect the liberties that have kept us great in a diversified mocker saint and the envy of countries

part unintentional mistakes that government brought to the court's attention on its own accord. of course the bad news is that even with all the checks and balances else into the system these kinds of errors can still recurve. even more unsettling or other airports since july that suggested that there have been cases of intentional willful misuse of intelligence authorities by nsa employees to spy on their spouses and neighbors.

dossiers on americans? >> are you going toward the social networks? >> no. >> what if anything is anchored in "the new york times" article? >> the accuracy is the secretary of defense and the attorney general did approve a supplemental procedures governing committee patients metadata analysis and 2009. what that allows us to do is use metadata that we have acquired under executive order whether it's phone records or e-mails through u.s. selectors to figure out social networks abroad.

getting that balance right. my bill would change this. it would make the government give annual statistic on the number of america's information collected. and the number whose information is actually reviewed. it would also let companies disclose agreements and disclosing a are aggravate statistics on the number of requests they get and a number of accounts affected. i'm very pleased to report that yesterday morning perk's leading tech companies from apple to

financial records on millions of us citizens cftc. >> consumer financial protection bureau. >> not that i know of. but it is always the fbi but whether under a regular court or the fisa court. >> in the same for voice mail and text messages?

tools to help keep us safe. but there is always a but, there has to be limits on the surveillance powers we give to the government. just because something is technologically possible and just because something may be deemed technically legal does not mean it is the right thing to do.

discarded after five years? >> so for nsa, it depends on the type of data. so in the meta data repository for 215, as you stated, and aged off after five years by court direction. if there's a report, that, of course, would not be aged off. the report will stand just like other intelligence activities. within the executive order, 12333 meta data repository. it depends on the repository and the type of data being done. generally speaking it's five

sometimes find we get far more in the newspaper and we get a crossword puzzle too but we get more in the newspapers than we do in the classified re-things that you give us. according to the article the nsa associates and locates americans now if it's accurate it appears to contradict earlier representation that the nsa does not compile dossiers of files on the wrecking people. is the nsa compiling dossiers of

and said we anticipate a strike, but we don't know what. we don't nowhere. we don't know when. that can never be allowed to happen in the united states of america again. that's the basis for this program. it's legal. we are looking at increased transparency. we are looking to make some changes in it. but we are not looking to destroy it. to destroy it is to make this nation more vulnerable. i just wanted to say that. i had to say it. thank you.

and section 7702 of fisa. in this way without a warrant collected content of tens of thousands of -- americans. nsa violated a fisa order under 215 records database without meeting the standards imposed by the court. these repeated violations led to several reprimands by the fisa court for what the fisa court called a systemic noncompliance by the government. a series of substantial misrepresentations to the court. now we have seen no evidence of

if i could just read it real quick as previously reported of the oversight committee it does not collect vocational information under the patriot act that they receive samples to test the ability of the format but it was not used for any other purposes and is never available in the 2013 closed hearing of a select committee of intelligence.

used to authorize collection. the government has not made its case in bulk collection of domestic phone records is an effective counterterrorism tool especially in light of the intrusion on american privacy. in addition i find the legal justification for this bulk -- to be be strained of it. i looked at the classified list of cases involving section 215 and i found to be unconvincing.

spy on their spouses and neighbors. these disclosures have created a broader crisis of trust in the legitimacy of our intelligence gathering methods generally. in my view have these programs and more transparent from the start the trust deficit that the american people have wouldn't be as severe as it is now.

they were not all thwarted to the american people are getting left with an accurate impression of the effectiveness of the nsa programs. would you agree that the 54 cases that kid getting cited by the administration were not all plots and of the 54 third -- 13 had some nexus to the u.s.. would you agree with that or no. >> yes.

privacy of americans and our allies is better than any country in the world. >> i have one more question mr. chairman. is it the only program that fisa runs under 700 to? be the guests into under that authority for the court but that is under seven '05

documented instances where the nsa employees abused their authorities. it was heartening to see how few cases of intentional misconduct exists but on the other hand it's alarming to know the possibility of employees engaging in such behavior turns out to be very real. the nsa inspectors general's response to my letter reflected that many of these cases were referred to the department of justice for possible criminal

together data while protecting rights. i listen to this program being described as a surveillance program. it is not -- there is no content collected by the nsa. there are bits of data, location, television numberses that can be queried when there's reasonable suspicious. if it looks like shotgun for the individual in the country. it goes to the fbi for a probably cause warrant and a

i'm very pleased to report that yesterday morning perk's leading tech companies from apple to going toll microsoft to facebook and twitter to yahoo!, all of these companies sent a letter supporting my bill. urging this committee and congress to pass it. without objection, mr. chairman, i'll enter a copy of this to the record. >> without objection.

>> yeah. >> thank you. you and i asked the fbi -- collected under the 215. he testified that the data collected under 215 is scrapped every five years or after five years, i think on a rolling basis. it is all meta data collected under other authorities also discarded after five years? >> so for nsa, it depends on the

other intelligence activities. within the executive order, 12333 meta data repository. it depends on the repository and the type of data being done. generally speaking it's five years. there may be pieces of information that we retain longer that are our intelligence value overseas that is different than the ones we have in the united. that's all that nsa has in those areas. >> as i understand that, yeah. it's handled differently..

alexander in support to find them a needle in the haystack but the fact it can tell so much from the target of the detailed analysis indicates there is some privacy interest at stake given the current doctrine that we come together that private details should the

with their privacy in enter the which this standard is being conducted in we have made progress with transparency to the congressional oversight but it did not provide lasting assurance. >> i completely agree in these changes was a degree

foreign brodeur i did not think of other bulk records that we would need like the phone but i do think fazio look at the phone data that is the question releasing the intel committee today what they understood of the vocational data and the requirements, a rethink right now there are but i

they need. absent a search warrant. does the nsa have the ability or access to voicemail content or the financial records on