Senator:

We've had a number of common sense proposals in the judiciary committee to improve these provisions, but but the intelligence community has told us that, really, we obviously don't have the ability to -- as simple senators -- to know anything as well as you do, and that you do not need changes.

We've been told that they are critical to our counter-terrorism efforts, we shouldn't--congress shouldn't tinker with them at all, we should simply trust you to use them the right way, and they should be made permanent.

I don't think that's wise, I think that there should be sunset provisions, that we should look at them periodically and should actually debate them in a free and open society.

Now we have information recently declassified by the director of national intelligence and I'm not going into questions of whether he contradicted himself in a couple of answers, but taken what he recently declassified it appears section 702 collection said it was critical to disrupting the Zazi case in New York City, but it's not clear that data collected purusant to section 215 of the Patriot Act was similarly critical or crucial.

So General Alexander let me ask you this: aside from these two cases, has the intelligence community kept track of how many times phone records have obtained through section 215 of the Patriot Act were critical to the discovery and disruption of terrorist threats.

General Alexander:

I don't have those figures today--

Senator:

Are those figures available?

General:

We are going to make those figure available--

Senator:

How soon?

General:

Over the next week it would be our intent to get those figures out. I've talked to the intel committee on that yesterday. I think it's important to know that--

Senator:

We've talked to the intel committee about this yesterday but you didn't have the figures yesterday.

General:

I gave an approximate number to them in a classified--

Senator:

[inaudible]

General:

--but it's dozens of terrorist events that these have helped prevent.

Senator:

Now we collect millions and millions and millions[sic] of records through, uh, 215 but dozens of them have proved crucial, or critical, is that right?

General:

For both here and abroad, in disrupting or contributing to the disruption of a terrorist attack.

Senator:

Of those millions, dozens have been critical?

General:

That's correct.

Senator:

Would you give me the specific - even if it has to have been classified - the specific cases you're talking about?

General:

We will, but we're going through the intel committee to do this tomorrow, I'll give as clear as we have vetted precisely what we have done on each of those, and the reason that I'm - I want to get this exactly right Senator - is that I want the American people that we're being transparent in here, and--

Senator:

No no, you're not giving it to the American people, you're giving a classified [inaudible] to specific members of congress, is that correct?

General:

Well there's two parts, we can give the classified that's easy, but I think also for this debate what you were asking, and perhaps I misunderstood this, but I thought you were also asking what we could put out unclassified. And so the intent would be to do both, as you said that I--

Senator:

Do you think you could do that within a week?

General:

That is our intent, I am pushing for that and perhaps faster. And if I don't get any kicks from behind me.

Senator:

If you don't get what?

General:

Kicks from the people behind me who are doing the work, because we do want to get this right. And it has to be vetted across the community so that what we give you you know is accurate, and we have everybody here (especially between the FBI and the rest of the rest of the intel community) can say this is exactly correct.

Senator:

Okay, now DNI Clapper said that the section 702 collection was critical to the discovery and disruption of the plot to bomb the New York City subway system, Zazi case, is that correct?

General:

That is correct, in fact not just critical it was the one developed a lead on it, so I would say that was the one that allowed us to know it was happening.

Senator:

But that is different than section 215.

General:

That is different from section 215--

Senator:

--215 phone records and 702--

General:

If I could explain it--

Senator:

--Go ahead.

General:

Because I do think it's important that we get this right and I want the American to know that we're trying to be transparent here, protect civil liberties and privacy, but also the security of this country. On the New York City one, the Zazi case, it started with a 702 set of information based on operatives overseas, we saw connections into a person in Colorado. That was passed to the FBI, the FBI determined who that was, Zazi, and phone numbers that went to that. The phone numbers on Zazi were the things that then allowed us to use the business records--FISA to go and find out connections from Zazi to other players throughout the community specifically in New York City.

Senator:

Was 215 critical?

General:

That's how those two worked together. I think 215 is critical in corroborating and it helping[sic] us understand--

Senator:

--Was it critical to Zazi?

General:

Not to Zazi because the first part of Zazi went to the 702.

Senator:

And Headley.

General:

Uhm.

Senator:

Was either 702 or 215 critical?

General:

702 on Headley and some on the business record FISA for corroborating. And I think it's important to understand because this is an issue that I think will be part of the debate, and I put on there Senator also the Boston, I think we need to walk through that so that what we have on the business record FISA, what we have on 702, what you debate, the facts that we can give you, is what we what with that, how we tip that to the FBI, if you took that away what we could not do, and is that something that when we look at this from a security perspective--

Senator:

Boston, if you're talking about the marathon case with the FBI could've done was to pass on the information to the Boston authorities (they said they did not) that might've been helpful to. But my time is up and I just had mention this only because before it was brought up in the judiciary committee we were going to ask some very specific--

General:

--So if I could Senator I want to make sure we're clear on one point: when I say dozens what I'm talking about here is that these authorities complement eachother in helping us identify different terrorist actions, that help disrupt them, they complement eachother, so what you're asking me is to state unequivocally that A or B contributed solely to that. The reality is that they work together and we've got to help make that clear to you so that we are doing this--

Senator:

--And I will be waiting to see that specific examples either in an open or classified fashion.