use, they have to enter an e-mail address or ip address and it does two things. it searches that database and lets them listen to the calls or read the e-mails of everything that the nsa has stored, or look at the browsing histories, or google search terms, and alerts them to any further activity that people connected to the e-mail address or ip address have in the future. it's done with no need to go to court. with no need to get even supervisory approval.

browsing histories, microsoft word documents. it's a powerful and invasive tool that he described. they are going to go before the senate on wednesday, and i defy them to deny that it works the way i just said. >> do we have any evidence that capability -- pretty explosive capability, that it was used? >> there's lots of evidence of abuse. your network, abc news and brian ross, several years ago, nsa analysts got caught listening to telephone conversations between soldiers and girlfriends stations in iraq. and the nsa has wildly exceeded the scope of the legal limits that the law allows. there are all sorts of admissions, including this week in a letter to senator wyden that it exceeded the legal authority it acknowledges it has. and they write it off to inadvertent key strokes. the realy issue is they have de

was lying. but your new reporting bolsters snowden's claim. >> right. one of the most amazing parts of the episode have been that james clapper an others lied to the american congress, which everyone acknowledges, about what the nsa is doing. it's amazing he hasn't been prosecuted but still has his job. it lets national security officials continue to lie to the public, which happened in

wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge, to everyone the president if i had a personal e-mail. >> now that claim was denied by intelligence officials, and the chair of the house intelligence committee, mike rogers said he was lying. but your new reporting bolsters snowden's claim. >> right. one of the most amazing parts of the episode have been that james clapper an others lied to the american congress, which everyone acknowledges, about what the nsa is doing. it's amazing he hasn't been prosecuted but still has his job. it lets national security officials continue to lie to the public, which happened in exchange you just referenced. the way that i know exactly what they have the capability to do when spying on americans, the story i'm working on for the last month, publishing this week, very yearly sets forth what these programs are that nsa analysts, low level one, not just those who work for the nsa but private contractors like mr.

with no need to get even supervisory approval. there are legal constraints for spying on americans, you can't target them without going to the fisa court. but these systems allow analysts to listen to whatever e-mails day want. whatever telephone calls, browsing histories, microsoft word documents. it's a powerful and invasive tool that he described. they are going to go before the senate on wednesday, and i defy them to deny that it works the way i just said. >> do we have any evidence that capability -- pretty explosive

hardly at all. it's an indication of a healthy democracy where the oversight of congress on even security issues is important. the last time i called this same issue for a vote, an amendment i offered the senator judiciary committee, senator mike lee, republican of utah and i co-sponsored it, only one other senator joined us in that vote. it's clear the sentiment is growing for oversight. with the senators pushing for it, it's going to increa that effort for oversight.

the new reporting zeroes in on one of the most explosive claims made by snowden a few weeks back. let's take a look. >> and i sitting at my desk certainly had the authorities to wiretap anyone from you or your accountant to a federal judge, to everyone the president if i had a personal e-mail. >> now that claim was denied by intelligence officials, and the chair of the house intelligence committee, mike rogers said he was lying.

the scope of the legal limits that the law allows. there are all sorts of admissions, including this week in a letter to senator wyden that it exceeded the legal authority it acknowledges it has. and they write it off to inadvertent key strokes. the realy issue is they have de this in complete secrecy. nobody monitors who they're eavesdropping on. the question of abuse is one congress should be investigating. >> i know you have been in contact with snowden, it seems he's prepared to stay in russia, will that be possible and what russia will decide?

kind of reforms can you support? >> well, certainly it's good to have a healthy debate on this issue, george. i agree with dick that the right kind of oversight is absolutely necessary. we have got oversight of this program. both by the department of justice, by nsa, by the fisa court, by the intelligence committees, by the judiciary committee. there is no other program in the intelligence community that has as much oversight as this one, because people deserve to have their privacy protected. and i do think that we're going

they are going to go before the senate on wednesday, and i defy them to deny that it works the way i just said. >> do we have any evidence that capability -- pretty explosive capability, that it was used? >> there's lots of evidence of abuse. your network, abc news and brian ross, several years ago, nsa analysts got caught listening to telephone conversations between soldiers and girlfriends stations in iraq. and the nsa has wildly exceeded the scope of the legal limits that the law allows. there are all sorts of admissions, including this week in a letter to senator wyden that it exceeded the legal authority it acknowledges it has. and they write it off to inadvertent key strokes. the realy issue is they have de this in complete secrecy. nobody monitors who they're eavesdropping on.

officials in the senate, republican saxby chambliss, and dick durbin. you're the vice chair of the intelligence committee right now. would it surprise you if it turns out what he's reporting there is true? that low-level officials have the capability to read e-mails, net traffic, listen to phone calls? >> george, it wouldn't just surprise me, shock me. i was at the nsa just last week. spent a couple hours out there with high and low level nsa officials.

it, it's going to increa that effort for oversight. that's a healthy thing. >> will you vote for that amendment? >> yes, i will. i sponsored it. i believe we should limit the meta data collection. the notion we're going to collect all of the phone records of everyone living in an area code on the off-chance that someone in that area code may be a suspect at a later time goes way too far. and there should be another step, the fisa courts, there should be a real court proceeding. in this case, it's fixed in a way, it's loaded. there's only one case coming

with high and low level nsa officials. what i have been assured of is there is no capability at nsa for anyone without a court order to listen to any telephone conversation or to monitor any e-mail. in fact we don't monitor e-mails. that's what kind of assures me that what the reporting is is not correct. because no e-mails are monitored now. they used to be, but that stopped two or three years ago. so i feel confident that -- that there may have been some abuse, but if it was, it was pure accidental.

way, it's loaded. there's only one case coming before the fisa's case. it's the government's case. let's have an advocate for someone standing up for civil liberties to speak up about the privacy of americans when they make the decisions, and release some of the transcripts, carefully redacted so people understand the debate in the courts. >> so senator chambliss, support for ending that program seems to be growing. can you defeat the amendment, number one, and number two, what kind of reforms can you support? >> well, certainly it's good to have a healthy debate on this

their privacy protected. and i do think that we're going to have to make some changes to make things more transparent. whether we should go as far as what dick's alluded to, i'm not sure what that jeopardizes as a program. let's don't forget, we have got to reach the right kind of balance between protecting americans and giving 100% protection on the privacy side. we should never invade any american citizen's privacy. but we've also got a

but if it was, it was pure accidental. >> senator durbin, do you believe that, and second, talk about the vote referenced. the close vote in the house this week where the nsa collection program survived. but democratic colleagues are pushing to end it as well, where do you stand on that? >> this was an amazing vote. we came within six votes of challenging an intelligence operation. that doesn't happen very often. hardly at all. it's an indication of a healthy

the scope of the legal limits that the law allows. there are all sorts of admissions, including this week in a letter to senator wyden that it exceeded the legal authority it acknowledges it has. and they write it off to inadvertent key strokes. the realy issue is they have de

capability -- pretty explosive capability, that it was used? >> there's lots of evidence of abuse. your network, abc news and brian ross, several years ago, nsa analysts got caught listening to telephone conversations between soldiers and girlfriends stations in iraq. and the nsa has wildly exceeded the scope of the legal limits that the law allows.

officials continue to lie to the public, which happened in exchange you just referenced. the way that i know exactly what they have the capability to do when spying on americans, the story i'm working on for the last month, publishing this week, very yearly sets forth what these programs are that nsa analysts, low level one, not just those who work for the nsa but private contractors like mr. snowden. the nsa, they have trillions of phone calls in their database that they have collected. they are simple screens like the ones that supermarket clerks use, they have to enter an e-mail address or ip address and