only here but in europe and around the. i think it is absolutely vital that we understand that. so where do we come from. >> i want to tell you why we are here it is now 2:00 eastern time, you are looking at a live hearing that is taking place in washington, d.c. it is the house intelligent committee. this follows reports that as many as 70,000 citizens in europe were spied on 60 million, excuse me, in spain. and the european leader expressing outrage over what is going on. you are will being to general keith alexandar he is the head of the national security agency, this is his life testimony before congress.
there have been no willful violations. there have been 12 other a decade. the majority of those were done in foreign space on foreigners. i think that's important to understand. for our foreign partners and our allies. we hold ourselves to that same standard. no matter if we operate here or abroad. if we do something that does not fall within an intelligence requirement, it is wrong. so we hold our people accountability and we
report to this committee. as we go forward in the future, one thing we talks about, this is a tough time for nsa, where everybody says what are you doing, or why are you doing it. but leer is what we do. when we get together, we don't -- well, maybe a couple times weeweeing but we say, it is much more important for this country that we defend this nation and take the beatings, and it is to give up a program that would result in this nation being attacked. we would rather be here in front of you today telling you why we defended these programs then having given them up, and have our and having them attacked and people killed. and the interesting part is we have shown. we can do both. and protect the chairman,
and ranking member it has been an honor and privilege to work with this committee, even though at times you wire brush us. you know, that we are going to tell you the truth, the whole truth, and everything that we know, every time that's our commitment to you. and that's our commitment to this country. with that, chairman, that ends my remarks. thank you. >> the clock is reached zero. so i will remind members that we will recess, call of the chair, five minutes after the second vote we will reconvenes. and i would ask that we escort our panelists to the green room. you have been listening to live testimony, that is taking place in washington right now. they are taking a brief recess. the first person to
testify was james clapper, the director of national intelligence saying that our nation needs this discussion, that discussion being who is being spied on by there were reports of him coming from edward snowden. and then a separate report in the el mound doe newspaper indicated that some 60 million people in spain, as well as 35 world leaders. their phones being tapped. giving some rather interesting numbers that have not been disclosed before. he said that their mission began on september 11th which is a reframe that has been heard time and time again, as this debate raged on, he said that on that day, 2,996 people
were killed on september 11th, but here is the part that is that public has never heard before, he said that 20 beam from the nsa have been killed fighting what is called the war on terrorism, since then, and that 6,000 people from the nsa were deployed i guess to gather intelligence. he says there has not been a mass casualty in this country since 2001, he says that is not by luck, they have not stopped trying. he also points out that they have stopped 13 incidents in the united states, another 25 incidents across europe. anyclapper also saying he believes that we have been lawful, with regards to what has been taking place, saying that everything goes through the fisa court, better known as the federal intelligence surveillance act, which is a court set up in washington, d.c., it is run by a judge, and they hear and see everything that happened inside the nsa. randall pinkston joins me now live, you were
listening, it was fascinating in the sense that those of us that have been in town for a long time, know they do not talk about these things in open. >> truly fascinating. and they explained that what has happened in the past several months is that the threshold for discussing these kind of sensitive intelligence details has been lured because of the leak of all of that sensitive data by former nsa analyst edward snowden. but the bottom line here on both clapper and alexandar, the top intelligence chiefs of the u.s., the bottom line here is they say they are doing everything they are doing according to the law that they are not spying on any americans citizens without a court order. or for that matter one of them added not even spying on foreign citizen who is are not involved in any kind of terrorist investigation. and that they intend to continue to do what they are doing, because it saves lives not only in
america, but as you just pointed out in europe as welt, where general clapper says the threat is much closer. >> and randall, there seems to be a sense of indignation, rye churros otherwise, on the part of both men. megadata that is what you heard. gathering information to see what they see. it is then narrows down to whether it fits into certain categories. does no have the eyes on that particular megadata. >> that would allow the data to be coated. and then another group of
people who can then go in and actually listen to the phone calls or read the text messages. a very careful system of rules that protect the selection of the megadata and who has access to it. in other words, they are saying that they are collecting this information, and then for it comes to a terrorism investigation, only a limited number of people would have the ability to go in and get that information and that edward snowden, the leaker as he was called, did not, could not access that information. >> james clapper saying
we have been here before, talking about the 1970s and specifically mentioning that in the fact the 1970s -- demonstrators domestically, and there has been concerned about the reach of the c.i.a. with regards to programs in which civilians had been drugged. and in fact, in one case a very well known case a former c.i.a. scientists was actually murdered and jumped out of a hotel room in new york city. you heard clapper talking about that saying this is not that. that now days there are checks and balances many of those checks and balances put in place since 1975. when the senate and intelligence committee began looking at what intelligence was gathering and how that intelligence was being used. if the wormed is listening we are not the same u.s. that you thought you may have known, is that what you
heard? >> talking about the church hide tees and the subsequent report. the general pointed out. and the other possible civil rights. >> it is not another 9/11. that visits this country -- do this intelligence gathering they have been able to prevent some planned attacks. he said to the panel general alexandre that we would rather be here defending these programs rather than giving the programs up and then coming before the panel and explaining why
americans were killed. i will ask you this question. and that being what led us to this point in other words after september 11th what was the climate like in washington. you saw people with glasses on that said stop spying. and one thing that is fascinating is they are hauled out, and then afterwards they will hold a small news conference, and nothing actually happens to them. they are not hauled off to a gulag, this is the united states, and the other thing being that yesterday as he was being confirmed james cony, the new head of the fbi says that he is now instructing every agent to visit the statue of dr. martin luther king, to be reminded that
september 11th, 2,996 people were killed on that day, he says there has not been a mass casualty since then. they have continued to try, they being those that would attack us. randall standing by live, randall james clap terrorism director of national intelligence saying our nation needs this discussion. there was so much activity to tighten the security that the nation needed because so many of the agencies weren't talking about anything, and they weren't talking to each other. >> well, you know, dale, with all due respect, i have to say, that there are some people who will say that in fact there was enough information for the u.s. to connect the dots prior to september 11th. let me point this out, there is some disagreement, even among
advocates. about which is begun next. chairman rogers talk about the need for some reforms. and the patriot act before september 11th. he is going to propose a freedom act that would amend the patriot act to redefine the protocols the rules that would allow the collection of data on american citizens as well as foreign intelligence gathering. there are, however, some congressman that don't think it is necessary. >> i am totally opposed to what he is trying to do. i think that the nsa is doing a outstanding job, and for its to tie its hands will cost american lives.
there has been intelligence gathering against their leaders for example, german chancellor merkel. king says that it is necessary for the u.s. to know what our allies are doing, pointing out that at 1 point, back in the days of the soviet union, a germ manage chancellor has spied in his government. and it was very important fur the u.s. to know that. at a point when the soviet union was our principle enemy. >> randall, as you have had those discussions with congressman king, there seems to be an interesting dialog that is taking place in washington right now, about how you manage to take tabs on an agency that you aren't supposed to know what it does.
yeah. this open hearing on the part of the house select intelligence committee it is happened before, but it doesn't happen too often. and congressman king is hoping not too much will be revealed. where they have already talked to the nation's intelligence piece about the methods and protocols and what they know and when they knew it. but this is for the american public. to relay concerns that the spy agencies are illegally spying. and his counter parts. if there is any intelligence gathering it is done by court order. so -- that's the purpose of today's hearing. to lay out as much as can be told, about the intelligence gathering of the nations intelligence
agencies and by the way, as we listened to this hearing, we haven't heard anything about the concerns of the foreign -- of our allies and the dust up over collecting information about them. i suppose that may happen later in the afternoon. during the question and answer session. >> sometimes it seems that you get -- i guess as good a questions from the public as you do from reporters. two questions that people stop me and ask me, they say why are the europeans so upset concerning allegations of spying against them, when they at least some members of the public that approached my, believe that the other government fie on us. and they point to the fact. some say to his blackberry, he loved to always get those messages in instant time. one thing he said to him, is that blackberry has to go, you can't keep it.
they have intelligence chiefs who are very well schooled in the weak points of these smart to bees and they would have done the same thing. why the german chance lore was walking around with a device that would be tapped listeninged to that's the question. no one has confirmed officially that the u.s. did in the past, listen to her conversations. what the white house has said is we are not doing it now. and congressman king and other members of the intelligence committees in the house and senate have said that they would be alarmed if it were happening but no one has said it has actually
happened. there has to be some plausible denialble when it comes to these. >> one something that they are pointing out to me, when you talk about the particular fying there are agreements that are in place between countries one reasons that they are is an agreement, i understand a place between the united states and great britain, is because they were allied in world war ii. but as you correctly pointed out, germany and japan were on the other side of the war. and there the intelligence community, they can't just change with the will of the people, saying things are this way now because they change so quickly. >> even the interest of our closest ally will be at odds with what the u.s. wants. so it is necessary for the u.s. to know what the u.k. is doing, and -- we would presume that the u.k. would feel the same about america's strategies and policies. this topic we think is
going to be something that we will continue to discuss. going forward, especially since some of our allies are now threatening to change the relationship with respect to our trade agreements. and even intelligence sharing. which has been so important after 9/11, because keep in mind, the u.s. did not have assets in many parts of the world where we needed to know what was going on. we even had some cooperation from iran, some people forget that. right after 9/11, iran allowed the u.s. to get access to certain information that assisted our war efforts in afghanistan. so -- what is this thing about no permanent enemies always primitive interests. and is interest can shift at any moment.
>> we are going to show you that live image of the house intelligence committee, and recess right now been we are waiting for the participants to return when they do, we will return. but today is an important day, up and down the east coast, in fact, those are the participants returning right now. super storm sandy, destroying thousands of homes up and down the eastern seaboard, especially hard hit, the coastal communities of new york and new jersey. now one year later some of the people are stick struggling. eric has more in our original series surviving sandy one year later. >> it was the first home they owned and the family has only lived nit for four months before super storm sandy slammed into their shoreline town, it was heartbreaking. >> yeah. >> it was heart wrenching. >> it was tough to separate out our situation from everybody else, because it was a collective heartbreak. >> their heart broken neighbors started picking up the pieces but jeff
and deena have been at a standstill. >> already you guys one year later. >> basically, exactly the same place we were. the day after the storm. this is basically where the foundation cracked all the way down through the footing. when they went to collect their claim with the national flood assurance program, they were flatly denied. the policy does not insurance for loss of property caused by earth movement, even if the earth movement is caused by flood. >> it made no sense that you can have a whole part of your house be excluded from a flood policy even if caused by a flood. and it's in all caps in the policy which is like having car insurance, and
they don't cover anything below the windows. even if you will in a car accident. >> new floored insurance also require residents to elevate their home. >> 36 years of disaster relief. >> dave charles says the family is one of thousands of sandy survivor whose have fallen victim to this federal legal hope, that he says was designed to prevent coverage. >> this federal flood policy was written by congress so it would literally take an act of congress to change the language to help storm victims. that is, unless a high ranking state leader stepped in. like governor cuomo recently did for new yorkers plagued by this very predicament.
>> by chattizing congress for delaying disaster relief. >> dixie ticks days and counting. shame on you. shame on congress. >> but he has been silent on this particular problem. >> it is time for christie to step up and do the same thing, he has the same money, the same access, he can wave his hand and make this go away. because the clock is ticking. >> the rental assistance that we are getting from fema, runs up in six months. >> they simply cannot afford to pay rent on top of their mortgage, and they do not have the cash to rebuild their home that can cost as much as $150,000. plus, they have three small children. who have their own feelings about the storm. and then there's jeff. >> you okay. >> yeah. >> who was recently diagnosed with a rare auto immune disease.
>> so we have all those things. what gets them through each day is their kids. >> if we didn't have them, i don't know how we would have made it through this year. as long as we have that coming through the door, when they get home from school, that makes it easier. >> erica, al jazeera. we take you back to washington, d.c., where the question and answer period has begun, the house intelligence committee, this is congressman mike rogers. >> i have to say, that that does not necessarily extend down to the level of detail, we are talking about a huge enterprise here with thousands and thousands of individual requirements. so we don't necessarily review with the white house what the fourth coming collection deck is say for overhead
collection for tomorrow. or which human asset is recruiting which source. or in the case of nsa, which selector is being used to fulfill specific requirements. that is done as levels below the staff. they engangment, though, is the output of all of this, in the form of intelligence analysis and production, and that is what they then use to tune the requirements to update them and to refine them. >> so part of that frame work is that plans and intentions of foreign leaders would be important for the united states to know. >> that's a hearty perennial, as long as i have been in the intelligence business, 50 years, leadership intentions in whatever form is expressed is kind of a basic tenant of what we are to collect and
analyze. >> why would that be important for policy makers to know what the intentions of foreign leaders may or may not be? >> well, for one, to determine if what they are there the intelligence perspective if what they are saying jells with what is going on. it's invaluable to us to know where countries are coming from, what their policies are. how that would impact us across a whole range of issues. so and it isn't just leaders themselves. policies they can convey to governments. >> and -- it's certainly in my time since being in this business as an fbi at, and since 2004 on this committee, always found that the best way to determine a foreign leaders intentions is to somehow either get close to a foreign leader or actually get communications of a
foreign leaders would that be accurate? >> yes, it would. >> and is say for how many years you have been in the intelligence business. is in something new and different, that the intelligence can chart. to try to determine what the best policy may be for the united states of america. >> it's one of the first things i learned in spell school. the business and what level you are talking about. against the quite of america, our intelligence services our leaders orb otherwise. >> absolutely. >> are you familiar with a story from the former french head of the direct are you familiar with that? >> assess the french
domestic intelligence organization. >> i am concerned by such knavety, you would almost think that our politicians don't tore read the reports. he is talking about french spying on our allies. >> the gambling going on here, it is the same kind of thing. >> director alexandar, and your experience of the national security agency, have over the course of that time engaged in anything that you would qualify.
>> with most of our allies taking place the european union. >> and this is on going today, this didn't stop two years ago, or last year, or maybe last week? to the best of your knowledge. >> counter intelligence activities that we participate in at all levels and maybe both of you can answer that, that members of congo through, that our policies overseas go through. is sit uhl to date and consistent that we should all be protected against espeonnage activities including when waffles among our al guys in the european union. s that correct? >> that's correct. chairman. >> mr. clapper. >> i agree, and this is kind of a -- i think standard fair for anyone who travels overseas.
and it is also your except of the conversation i have tried to place since i have been on this job on our own counter intelligence resources. which i believe are still underfunded. >> this may be out of your bounds i will ask it anyway, it is striking to me that the parliament, certainly the members that come in good faith and have discussions. is that consistent with your careers since 1963. and their operations and how they are compartmentlized away from their bodies? >> yes, absolutely. that comports with my experience, that often times policy makers that come and go, may not have familiarity with exactly how their intelligence operations work.
there is no one else that has the magnitude of oversight of this intelligence overprize that we do. >> to that end if i can, mr. alexandar, there was some reporting that the story about french citizens being spied on by a particular shied that was leaked, on a slide deck, concluded that french citizens were being spied on, can you expound on that a little bit? >> by is wrights, by the way specifically the national security agency? >> the assertions by reporters in france, spain, el mound doe, and italy, the nsa collected tens of millions of phone calls are completely false. the screen shots of results of a web tool used for data management purposes but both they and the person that stoled the classified
data did not understand the web tool comes from the records from around the world. and displays the total different formals. the sources of the me that date include data legally collected by nsa theatres as well as data provided to nsa by foreign partners. to be perfectly clear, this is not information that we collected on european citizens. it represents information that we and our nato allies have collected in defense of our countries and in support of military operations. >> and so let me just ask
you this, as you study the networks of the world, and let's just talk about the european union for a second, if i may. is it possible for chinese intelligence services military or otherwise to use networks that you would find in any nation states in the european union. >> . >> computer networks inside the european union for what they are up to. >> absolutely. >> whow about al quaida, could they use, is it possible for them to use the networks found in the european union to conduct planning operations or execution of operations? >> could. absolutely. >> and would bit in the purview of the national security agency to try to prevent those activities especially if it went through the european union and maybe even targeted at the united states or one of our allies. >> it is chairman, and it is something that we share with our allies. >> so you would collect information in those
cases and share it with our allies in a way that was appropriate, is that correct? >> that's correct. and it may not be actually collected in europe. >> because it is a global network? >> right. >> but it could be in europe? but it could be somewhere else, could be in the united states by a fisa warrant, is that correct? >> that's correct. and so you share information with our european allies and if i understood you they share information they have with us. >> they do, chairman. >> so the very certain accusation that the national security agency was collecting information on these citizens of the respected nation states i just want to get on the record again, is false? that did not happen. >> that's correct. those screen shots that show where at least lead people to believe, that we, the united states, collected that information is false. and it's false that it
was collected on european citizens. it was neither. >> well, it certainly has created an international row, but what i would argue is very poor reporting something that we are going to have to deal with here in the future. i am glad you clarified that, incredibly important. i am going to ask you this. about leaders that may or may not have been collected or numbers that may have been in the possession of the u.s. intelligence services. would it in fact value that information its way to at least the national security council in the white house? >> well, it certainly could -- i would rather not speak specifically, but speaking in totality, clearly leadership intentions are an
important dimensions of the landscape out there for all policy makers. whether in the white house or elsewhere. >> given the likelihood that the intelligence excite text messages, the house intelligence committee is aware of information that may be a value of any foreign leadership, wouldn't it be logically, have aux says to that same information? >> as i indicated earlier, i may not have information related to a specific selector. what they would say is the output of this, in the total dimensions. >> we are dancing around the bush, but i can imagine if there were specific output on any of that. and we are talking all almost hypothetical, it would certainly be a trained intelligence professional would clearly understand that maybe the intelligence services were following
the national intelligence priorities frame work. is that correct? >> yes. okay. >> you know, one -- we are going to get on to the privacy issues. i am concerned about where we are, that we have decided that we are going to name our intelligence services at the earlier opportunity as the bad guys in the process of trying to collect information lawfully and legally, with the most oversight we have seen, we are the only intelligence service in the world that is forced to go to a court before they even collect on foreign intelligence operations which is shocking to me, and yet, the very folks who have no view into their intelligence services have been screaming the loudest including candidly some in the united states. i hope we shake ourselves out of this. when you look at syria embroiled in a proxy war, the world that china is now threatening our
pacific allies, the fact that iran is aggressively working toward a nuclear weapon, the middle east is collapsing, in front of us, headed towards sectarian violence in a way that we with have never seen in the history of our country. and what that protends for our folks both to the european allies and the united states. the criminal gains with access to technology that we have never seen before. operating in every sector, every part of the globe. we have from live ray tors of materials that certainly keep us all up at night, working in every major nation state in the world. i am faken aback that we have decided that our services are to blame for what we have found again and again and again, is absolutely inaccurate reporting. and if we are going to have this debate, and we should, then we should do it on the facts that are presented before us. if you have done
something wrong, he knows we can bring out the wire brush, and we have done it. but the way we go forward is to make sure that ourle pas are protected and that people by the way, who have taken those oaths and who are doing their beth, not be demonized. this is the time for leadership in a very dangerous world. it is not a time to apologize. i would hope that you will pass along to the individuals that hopefully they can keep doing the work, and we will fight out the politics and get it right. we know that 9/11 road was paveed with a lot of very good intentions we out not to walk down that road again. >> you are listening to the house intelligence committee hearings on the nsa. the director of national intelligence saying yes we do listen in on conversations of other leaders around the world. he said they listen in on our conversations as well. using a quote from casa blanca saying they are gambling going on, it is necessary to listen in,
procedures and processes and leadership that we have put in place. and that's why it is ex-freely important, though that we get back to -- unfortunately, with a lot of the media that has been out there, a lot of the media that has not been based on fact, the allegations that are out there, that are -- that are really to gain in some situations a what i want to say, putting out a situation where an inflaming or scares people. and that's not what we need as americans. we need the american people to trust the government. so what we need to focus on is that transparency issue. we need to do something in that regard. when it comes to changing the provision. our committee is evaluating whether they can get away from the
collection, and move closer to the system used in the criminal prosecution system of our country. will respond to a subpoena and give the government information about meta data. phone numbers, no content, the information will come from what the providers already have in your business records. s as i said in the opening statement, this is not -- this is -- the most operation nally challenging proposal. it is important that we evaluate what can keep the capabilities of the program to keep our country safe. we have talks about that, you have testified that this does keep the country safe, i think there have been statements that if we had this program, before 9/11, there was a good possibility that we would have identified the fact that one of those terrorists was in the united states coordinating the attack. it's like finding a need until a hay stack. if you have to -- the terrorist being the needing and if you need
to find them throughout the world, you have to have the hay stack. that hay stack is basically name, address, just a number and the duration of a call. notwithstanding that we must move forward and try to put together another system that will the american public are trust what we are doing. let me ask you this, dune is that a program such as this by going to the providers as we do in criminal cases instead of us holding that data, do you have an opinion on whether it would work, and i know again if there are operational issues because you just discussed them with us. >> you have asked that thoughtful question a number of times. there are numerous architectures technical architectures that are possible and viable. where you place the day da as a component of that. there are four features that we think are
features that are present in today's the architecture we have today. the first is we must provide privacy. we must have the controls placed on this, that it is used only for those narrow purposes. the second is that it needs to have the breadth, it needs to be the whole hay stack, as you comprise this, and put it together, when you make a yearry, you come away confident that you have the whole answer, and if you are looking for a terrorist blot in the united states that an answer of i didn't find one is one that you can stake to the bank because you have the breadth. you also have to have is the depth, know that you have a far enough -- you look far enough back in time, that you know that there is something that if in its phase two years ago, and it has gone quiet, you can see nit that phase. we with have talks about having that data for five years can we do today, or as little as three years which we think will meet that need -- >> let me stop you there, i understand that providers by fcc rules must keep it for 18
months. >> they can keep it for their own purposes. they don't keep it to -- >> i know that. >> and they don't keep nit the form and format that would make it so you can meet the fourth requirement is that it needs to be available in a timely way. minutes count when we are trying to support the fbi and the deconnection of a plot that may be at that time on going. that's how we would assess any particular recommendation the committee may make, and we would happy to meet with the committee do that extent. >> do you have any other comments on that? with the providers in. >> i agree with what chris said. >> no, chris articulated. whatever scheme we come up with, as long as those are met -- >> how about justice cole? >> i agree with mr. engle's evaluation on that.
>> mr. congress way. >> thank you, chairman. general thank you for your heart felt offense of your team. great people, and limited experience with them comports with your broader longer experience, so thank you for that and tell them thank you on behalf of me that i appreciate it as well. i will allow general clanner to think about the answer to the second one. in your opening remarks you talk briefly about the oversight that does go other these programs. if you would walk us through the various layers of the compliance, officers privacy civil liberty each of those steps that go through there, to make sure we get that the oversight process and then general clapper, if you would give us a guess as to the total man hours and dollars that we would use in that process based on that? >> i am going to stater
with the oversight we have. otherseeing these programs. working with this committee, we sent up the director of compliance, this is another separate office, that looked specifically at these programs and our other collection programs to ensure that we do this right. we have a few hundred people that actually audit and track what our folks do every step of the way. so within the nsa we have an ex-freely healthy compliance and oversight, and there's some great comments by others saying this measure is what you would expect in any world class organization. the dni, has an inspector general, and a general council that also oversees what we are doing. the department of defense has a general council, and inspector general that oversees what we are doing, and the department of justice, the national security division, oversees what we are doing. and works with us in the court, and the white house.
we also this committee and the senate select committee on intelligence, and finally for thele froms that fall under fisa, we have the fisa court. and everything that we do in that respect goes up to the court. i have had to personally appear in front of that court. sometimes to address mistakes that we have been -- that we have made. and you know whenever you appear in front of a federal judge, that is -- and you have done something wrong, this is not a happy time. i found them to be completely professional. while they may not understand it, they have absolutely hammered us and tried to gettous get this right. let me interrupt real quick. there was an editorial that referred to a vague description, owhat was going on would you ever jews the word vague? >> absolutely not. i think at times they take ironically an
adversarial relationship. they will argue this out with us. they will tell us what is wrong with the things as we put in draft, and the justice department actually does a great job with that. i wanted to end up with two others. the civil liberties and privacy officer at the dni is superb in ensuring what we do. as. oyou know, we are hiring a new officer fns action to ensure we do this right. so that's kind of the compliance. >> will there be any restrictions on that officer as to what he or she could not look at within that realm. >> no restrictions as long as it cries with the law. an estimate of how many man hours. >> i can't off the top of my head, but i will tell you it is easily tens of thousands of man hours and millions and millions of dollars that we spend on oversight of this program.
let alone the rest of the apparatus that is devoted to oversight, my staff, the department of justice, the fisa court, the privatesy officers i.g.s and the amount of time they spend, it is a very costly program, in terms of both man power and dollars. one last comment, reflection, is there anything either one of you can think of that is within your authority to do to address civil liberties and privacy issues that you are not doing? from my perspective no. one element if i could on to your question -- >> we have just scribe add note to ourselves at nsa, the annual dollars that we intend on this the 30 million we had 300 full time equivalents, what i scribed on the note is the everybody's job. everybody has a role to
play in compliance. when we bring our employees in on the first day, we give them the oath of office, we tell them it is to the whole of the constitution, and that each and every one of them has the responsibility no matter what they do to ensure that what they do complies with the laws. it is not just the outcomes it is the path to the outcomes. so the full time equivalent is working complains with every one of us. >> what else can we do, i think we're already embarked on this, and this gets to what congressman rupert was talking about, is which of course is more transparency. so the extent that we can make these elaborate processes more visible to the public, particularly, to give them more confidence, that would be something that we recognize we need to do. >> if i could, we also have courses that our folks have to go flu. if they are handling any
person, every person, has to go through how we handle u.s. persons. you have to take a course and pass a test. everybody. has to go through a series of courses. everyone who deals with the data has to go through a series of courses and most of those are almost everyone we have is an annual certification process. and in this business record fisa, there are at least six courses and 702, that people have to go through. this is a significant training to ensure that we handle the data appropriately. >> again, thank you for what your team does. >> thank you mr. chairman. general alexandar we have
been in many meetings together. i have to tell you, your robust support of your staff and your calls them patriots i thought implied that someone was saying that the people that worked for the nsa were impugned as not being patriots and not working hard. and i have to tell you that i have never heard that. i think people have questioned the policies, of the nsa. i think your -- the policies that you carry out have certainly been questioned. and they have been carried out by patriots. as evidence by the fact that almost a majority of the congress actually voted to end the surveillance program, and jury charge certain that you are not talking about them as not patriots. the -- the two
individuals who wrote one republican, one dome, who -- i mean -- yes, one republican one democrat, who wrote the u.s.a. patriot act, shortly after 9/11, have now introduced the u.s.a. freedom act. that essentially would repeal many of the aspects and change them. of the patriot act. there has been some diminution of our diplomatic relationships across the world. naive or not. disengen use or not. and it seems to mow that now with the president saying it looks like he is poised it says in the new york times to order the national security agency to stop eaves dropping on leaders of american allies, the
chairman of the senate intelligence committee raise add question that i think is legitimate. >> we are going to wrap up ourn't cooing coverage of the house intelligence committee hearingen on the nsa, it's spying capabilities and who it has been spying upon. it has been a bit comical at times. the director of the national intelligence saying it reminds him of a scene from casa blanca when referring to our allies spy upon us, he said my god there is gambling going on here, an indication that not only does the united states spy on world leaders but they spy on the united states as well. he also seemed to indicate that those leaders overseas may not know as much as habit spiring capabilities as americans do. our coverage continues in
just. a new voice in journalism. >> good evening everyone, welcome to al jazeera. >> usa today says: journalism review. and the daily beast says: >> quality journalists once again on the air is a beautiful thing to behold. >> al jazeera america, there's more to it. what happens when social media uncovers unheard, fascinating news stories? >> they share it on the stream. >> social media isn't an after-thought, it drives discussion across america. >> al jazeera america's social media community, on tv and online. >> this is your outlet for those conversations. >> post, upload and interact. >> every night share undiscovered stories.