[SLA-SF] FW: [nocall-list] Senator Dianne Feinstein's Response e: USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization

Tue Apr 25 11:32:06 PDT 2006

Greg Fite asked me to forward to the SLA list.  Dianne Feinstein's defense
of her vote on the Patriot Act renewal.

Karin

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-nocall-list-54354 at aallnet.org
[mailto:bounce-nocall-list-54354 at aallnet.org]On Behalf Of Fite, Greg, Law
Library
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 9:48 AM
To: Northern California Association of Law Libraries
Subject: [nocall-list] Senator Dianne Feinstein's Response e: USA PATRIOT
Act Reauthorization
Importance: Low

FYI.  I have highlighted the Senator's comments about Section 215, the
section that most closely affects libraries.  (The paragraph starts
with, "While I am happy with the compromise ...")

Greg Fite -- Technical Services Librarian
Bernard E. Witkin Alameda County Law Library
125 Twelfth Street
Oakland, California 94607-4912
Phone: (510) 272-6494
Fax: (510) 208-4823
E-mail: greg.fite at acgov.org
Web page: http://www.acgov.org/law

From: senator at feinstein.senate.gov
Sent: Apr 20, 2006 3:22 PM
To: gfite at thegrid.net
Subject: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message

April 20, 2006

Mr. Greg Fite
4719 Hillside Drive
Castro Valley, California  94546

Dear Mr. Fite:

      Thank you for your letter regarding the reauthorization of
the USA Patriot Act.  I appreciate your thoughts on this statute and
welcome the opportunity to respond.

        Recently, Congress passed, and President Bush signed into
law, the "USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act"
(H.R. 3199, Public Law 109-177).  I voted in favor of the final
version of this legislation, and am pleased with the compromise
which was reached.

      At the end of last year, after careful consideration, I voted
against cloture on the original conference report accompanying
H.R. 3199.  I took this step because of two basic concerns, both of
which were substantially diminished by the final agreement which
was signed into law.

       My concerns centered around the fact that first, the report
did not provide adequate judicial review of so-called "gag orders"
associated with the issuance of National Security Letters, and
required those who wanted to contest these orders before a court to
disclose information about their legal counsel to the FBI.  Second,
it appeared that efforts to forge a compromise bill had fallen apart,
with acrimony marking the progress of negotiations.  These were
serious flaws in my opinion, and needed to be rectified.

      The legislation signed into law accomplished this.  First, it
clarified that a gag order will be reviewed by a Federal Court, and
ensured that this review will include an inquiry into whether the
government is acting in "bad faith."  Further, the compromise
eliminated the onerous requirement of prior notification to the FBI
about legal counsel.

      Second, this bill seemed to have consensus support.
Simply put, if there is one area where partisan debate and petty
politics have no place, it is in the area of the national war against
terrorism.  I believed strongly that a compromise bill, supported by
members of both parties, was essential.  While I recognize that
achieving broad common ground among Republicans and
Democrats means, almost by definition, that nobody will be
entirely happy with the outcome, and I note that my colleagues and
I would liked to have seen other changes, the bill signed into law
achieved a necessary consensus.

      While I am happy with the compromise, Public Law 109-
177 certainly does not go as far as I would have preferred.  For
example, it does not adopt the original Senate language with
respect to the standard to be applied for granting a Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant for physical items (including
business records).  This issue, usually referred to by its Patriot Act
section number, "215", remains very controversial, and I believe
the language could permit inappropriate "fishing expeditions" if
not carefully monitored.  However, the agreed-upon language does
make clear that libraries performing "traditional functions" are
largely exempt from the more intrusive aspects of the law.  The
law also extends sunset provisions on the most controversial
provisions, including section 215, to 2009 instead of making them
permanent.  This is critical, as these provisions are an important
element of the continued vigorous oversight necessary to ensure
this law is carried out in an appropriate manner.

      Please know that I plan to stringently monitor the effects of
this law through my positions on both the Senate Judiciary and
Intelligence Committees, and will continue to keep your thoughts
in mind.  Again, thank you for writing.  Should you have any
further comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my
Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

                        Sincerely yours,

                        Dianne Feinstein
                        United States Senator

http://feinstein.senate.gov

Further information about my position on issues of concern to California
and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov.
You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my
e-mail list at
http://feinstein.senate.gov/issue.html.

<HTML>
--To unsubscribe from 'nocall-list'---><a
href="mailto:leave-nocall-list-54354H at aallnet.org">unsubscribe</a>
</HTML>