Ron Wyden

Just to wrap this up, that is a very fair procedure that the Senator from Mississippi has outlined and we will be happy to accept that.

I thank the Chair. As the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee knows, Senator Grassley and I have worked for a decade to bring some openness and accountability to the Senate by requiring that when a Senator puts a hold on a major…

Would it be acceptable to the distinguished chair of the committee and ranking minority member that I could ask unanimous consent that after you all have completed the bipartisan amendment of the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator…

The Senator is correct. I am asking that we insist on what we did in the Finance Committee and what Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus have worked closely with me on. It is our feeling that we do need to have a broader and more…

If I could have 3 additional minutes so I could speak for a total of up to 6 minutes.

The Senator from Montana is gracious. Does the Senator from California need any additional time?

What is so staggering is, when these big oil companies are charging record prices, making record profits, they are being given record tax subsidies that they show up and tell the American people they do not want. So I intend to speak on…

You cannot look the public in the eye after all the speeches about how the oil is needed here at home and pass legislation that is an invitation to export Alaskan oil to countries such as China. The history is, if you do not ban these…

If that is at all possible. Perhaps I will ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes after the vote; would that be acceptable?

I had approached the chairman to ask if I could speak for a few minutes as in morning business and if it would be possible at this time for me to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

As I said or touched on in my earlier comment, Senator Hatch and I had talked several days ago with the cloakrooms on both sides. We do want to be sensitive to our colleague. His point is valid. I think both of us could finish our remarks…

I would modify my request, Mr. President, that after the distinguished Senator from Vermont has completed his remarks, I would be next for 20 minutes, and the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, would come after me. The ACTING PRESIDENT…

I hope that Thursday's session can be done in public.

My concern is, and I'll wrap up with this Mr. Chairman, that the pre-9/11 set of walls has been replaced with a new set of walls preventing information sharing.

If the privacy board met the constitutional standards, what you're telling me is you would not rule out giving them a subpoena.

With all due respect, Mr. Director, as I've said, you've worked very well with me. This is not what we've done over the years.

I think that's a pretty sweeping comment that there really isn't any standard of proof, that there isn't any, to your terminology, no particular standard of proof.

Is it fair to say then, Director, that this staged development of information, as you describe it, is in fact the new standard of proof for issuing a FISA warrant and a National Security Letter?

But what is the standard of proof, then?

I want to follow up on an area that Senator Levin was touching on.

What I am interested in knowing is, what is necessary at this point, Director Mueller, to initiate an investigation within the FBI?

I'm concerned that a lot of these recipients aren't given notice of their right to challenge search orders.

Well, again, what is hard for us to address here is that we're to some extent doing oversight in the dark.

Why not require a judge to approve these National Security Letters?

Are you aware of Doe v. Ashcroft?