Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment I have offered with my colleagues, Senators Feingold and Tester.  Five other Senators have cosponsored this amendment, including Senators Kennedy, Biden, Menendez, Akaka, and Sanders.

I'd like to start by saying that I consider myself to be a realist when it comes to the intelligence services in the United States and when it comes to the use of classified information.  I got my first security clearance when I was 17.  I've been involved in this world all my life, off and on.  When I was Secretary of the Navy I was privileged to have black security clearances in a number of areas with highly sensitive information.  I understand the complexities of this environment.  I am also very sensitive to the massive instantaneous flow of data in this world that makes it essential that we have more rapid procedures in place in order to intercept key transmissions. But that also gives us the responsibility to ensure that with this higher volume of communication that we don't allow potential mistakes and abuse due to this increase.

           Stated simply, this amendment is designed to allow our Government to aggressively fight terrorism, while also protecting our constitutional rights and system of checks and balances. This amendment will neither stop nor slow down any of our vital intelligence activities.

           The core focus of this amendment is unassailable.  If we - as United States senators - truly endeavor to uphold our nation's Constitution while protecting our homeland security, then the Senate should adopt this amendment overwhelmingly.

           The American people have been following this debate. This is a complex law. We recognized that the arguments advanced by many in this chamber have not focused fully on the broad constitutional issues about which Americans have concerns.  We care about keeping our nation safe from further terrorist attack.  But we must also care just as deeply about making sure that our Government's surveillance is conducted in a legal manner that comports with the U.S. Constitution.

           I agree with my colleagues - many of whom sit on the Senate Intelligence or Judiciary Committees - that FISA needs to be updated for all the reasons that I've mentioned. And I'm proud that our Government's trained professionals have worked tirelessly for the past six-and-a-half years, since 9/11, in their effort to help keep our country safe.

           While the means of electronic communication surveillance have rapidly modernized, the speed and overwhelming volume of those communications still require us to maintain a balanced Federal system, with proper checks and balances against improper use of government authority.  The broader the government authority, the greater is our responsibility to ensure that this authority is narrowly and properly applied.      

           So the watchwords of this debate from our perspective are "Safety," "Security,"  "Fighting terrorism," but also "oversight of the Executive Branch," "proper checks and balances," and these watchwords should guide us.

           The Senator from Wisconsin has just completed an explanation of the nuts and bolts of this amendment.  I will not belabor his explanation of those finer points.

           Rather, I would like to emphasize what the American people have been demanding:  to restore a proper system of checks and balances for our Government's surveillance program.  Every Member of this body - and every American, no matter which political party or persuasion - supports the fundamental bedrock concept of checks and balances, concepts that we have captured in this amendment's provisions.

           As I mentioned, this amendment allows our Government to fully and effectively monitor communications in order to keep us safe from terrorist attack in every conceivable way.

           It permits our Government to acquire any foreign-to-foreign communications.

           It permits our Government to acquire any communications of suspected terrorists into or out of the United States.

           This amendment permits our Government to acquire any communications where there is reason to believe that the acquisition is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily harm.
           And, it permits our Government to acquire any communications for law enforcement purposes if the communication is evidence that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

           Stated simply, the underlying bill and this amendment bestow on our Government the essential tools to keep America safe.

           For the first time, this amendment would erect a system of oversight and accountability for communications that do not fall into the broad categories I described above.

           What types of communications?  They are communications that have one end in the United States and generally involve innocent Americans who are not targeted as suspected terrorists.  In other words, they could be anyone.  They could be you and me.  For those of us Americans who have no ties to terrorism, an updated FISA law must provide us with proper protections.

           As Senator Feingold described in his remarks, under this amendment, when the Government realizes that it has acquired a communication with one end in the United States, the Government must segregate that specific communication in a different database.  For example, this could take the form of a telephone call or an e-mail.

           Again, I must emphasize - so there is no misunderstanding:  even after segregating these communications, the Government can have full access to them.

           But the Government cannot - and should not - have unfettered access to communications of innocent Americans.

           This amendment is really quite simple.  Under this amendment, the Inspectors General for the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Justice would be given access to sequestered communications.  These sequestered communications will allow the Inspectors General to see specifically which Americans the Government surveilled or which specific communications were diverted into Government hands for possible surveillance.

           Using this information, the Inspectors General would be required to conduct audits of the implementation of this sequestration system and determine the extent of the surveillance.  I note that the Inspectors General would employ staffs with appropriate security clearances.  And at least once per year, the Inspectors General must report their findings to the Senate and House Committees on Judiciary and Intelligence.

           I believe that we need this amendment for many reasons.  For almost seven years, the Executive Branch's surveillance program has operated in almost total secrecy, often above the law and the Constitution, and often above any review by Congress or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.  For almost seven years now, only the Executive Branch and perhaps a few isolated employees of telecommunications companies have known which Americans were being surveilled.  This is unacceptable in a constitutional system whose founding fathers rejected the notion of an Executive Branch with absolute, unchecked authority.  In fact, Congress rejected the notion of unchecked executive authority when it originally passed FISA, after the Watergate scandal.

           There are many arguments that may be leveled against this amendment.  I believe that they hold no water.  Some arguments simply employ fear tactics to cloud issues of constitutional propriety.

           First, some may contend that the underlying bill already greatly expands the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court but the problem is that the pending bill requires only a review of general surveillance processes.  Administrations can and have abused processes.  A truly robust system of checks and balances, therefore, demands accountability and oversight over the specific communications obtained by the Government.

           This oversight is all the more critical because for almost seven years now, this Administration may have enjoyed completely unrestrained access to the communications of virtually every American.

           Do we know this to be the case?  I cannot be sure.  One reason I cannot be sure is that I have been denied access to review the documents that may answer these questions about the process.  Over one month ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wrote to the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, asking that all senators be given access to the documents surrounding the telecommunications companies' involvement in the Administration's surveillance program.  To this date, the Majority Leader's request has been denied.

           The denial of this request is one more reason that the Senate should bring true accountability to our nation's intelligence gathering process.  If we do not ask the tough questions and demand true oversight, how will we ever know the extent of Government surveillance or how many innocent Americans have been listened to?

           Second, some will argue that a process of sequestering communications will be cumbersome as the Senator from Wisconsin pointed out this is simply untrue. Under current law, the Government already labels the surveillance communications it collects.

           Third, opponents may contend that this amendment is a partisan ploy designed to embarrass the intelligence community and to obtain specific information that could be used against the Administration.

           Again, this is simply untrue.  The President's political party does not matter.  I would make the same arguments if the current President belonged to my party and in a year, that may be the case.  This amendment is not rooted in partisanship.  Rather, this amendment attempts to protect the constitutional rights of all innocent Americans.

           In sum, I ask my colleagues to join in supporting this amendment.  It is time to lay aside our differences and do what is right.  It is time for the Congress to aggressively and responsibly assert its oversight responsibilities.    

           I would like to thank the Chair for his leadership in developing this amendment. I ask for my full statement to be entered into the record without objection.

           Mr. President, I yield the Floor.

Wow. After reading this speech, I am so proud that Jim Webb is my Senator.  Members of Webb's "rag tag army" -- we "drafted" and elected the right guy in 2006! :)