U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message

[http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/~senator]

January 12, 2006

Mr. Robert

where-I-live  

Dear Mr.:

      Thank you for your letter regarding the USA Patriot Act.  I 
appreciate your thoughts on this statute and on continuing efforts 
to renew its 16 provisions before they sunset on February 3, 2006.  
I welcome the opportunity to respond.  
      
      The bulk of the USA Patriot Act, more than 250 sections, 
remains in force.  Only sixteen sections, the most controversial, are 
subject to a "sunset clause," meaning that they were scheduled to 
expire on December 31, 2005.  These provisions were designed to 
allow Congress to review the effect and use of the statue.  That 
review has been completed and late last year we were close to 
reaching agreement on language which would extend and improve 
the USA Patriot Act to accommodate civil liberty concerns while 
maintaining the ability to effectively fight terrorism. 
 Unfortunately, the session ended before agreement could be 
reached, and the sunset time was extended until February 3, 2006.

      I firmly believe that the USA Patriot Act has been a 
valuable tool in our effort to combat terror, and I am pleased a 
compromise was reached to provide Congress with more time to 
take another look at the controversial sections and make any 
changes that appear to be necessary.  It is extremely important that 
every effort be made to reach a consensus agreement that avoids a 
partisan standoff which diminishes our effectiveness to combat 
terrorism.  I remain committed to working to resolving the 
remaining issues, and extending the USA-Patriot Act as soon as 
possible.
       
      Again, thank you for writing.  Please know that I certainly 
understand your thoughts on this topic, and will keep them in mind 
as I closely monitor the progression of this legislation.  I have also 
enclosed with this letter a copy of a recent statement I delivered on 
the Senate floor concerning efforts to reach a compromise on USA 
Patriot Act renewal so that you may further understand my 
position.  Should you have any further comments or questions, 
please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at 
(202) 224-3841.
      
Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein
"In Advance of a Vote on Cloture on the USA-PATRIOT 
Reauthorization
And Improvement Act Conference Report" 
December 15, 2005

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member very 
much.  I would like to make a brief statement.  I am not sure I can 
do it in 5 minutes.  I may have to ask unanimous consent for a little 
additional time.  
	
Today the Senate is taking up the conference report to accompany 
the PATRIOT Act.  I am the original Democratic cosponsor of the 
unanimously passed Senate bill, as well as cosponsor of the 
Combat Meth Epidemic Act and the Port Security Crimes Act, 
both of which are incorporated in the conference report.  Thus, it is 
only after careful consideration that I have determined to vote 
against cloture tomorrow, and I would like to take a moment to 
explain why.  
	
I fear that it is going to be a very divisive and partisan vote 
tomorrow.  The USA PATRIOT Act has been a valuable tool in 
our effort to combat terror, but it has also become a divisive point 
of contention between Democrats and Republicans and, as a result, 
doesn't have the broad support of the American people.  Thus, it is 
extremely important that every effort be made to reach an 
accommodation before debate becomes contentious and even more 
partisan.
	
Outside the beltway, the USA PATRIOT Act has come to be 
terribly misunderstood.  Many believe it is related to Guantanamo 
Bay and the detention of prisoners.  Others believe it authorizes 
torture or the secret arrest of Americans.  It does none of these 
things.  
	
At the same time, some have irresponsibly sought to characterize 
anyone who seeks to improve or criticize the law as somehow 
playing into the hands of the terrorists.  They have implied that the 
USA PATRIOT Act will expire in its entirety on December 31, 
and we will be left with no defense against terrorist acts.  This, too, 
is untrue.  
	
What is true is that when it comes to national security, it is so 
important to build consensus.  Our efforts to combat terror in 
general, and the authorities in the PATRIOT Act specifically, are 
diminished in effectiveness if they are not seen by most Americans 
as the product of bipartisan effort in Washington. 
	
I believe our Nation's safety requires this body to reach 
compromise on this bill.  
	
That is why, when Senator Specter asked me to join him in 
introducing the Senate bill, I agreed.  I want to say something.  
Senator Specter has been a wonderful chair of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee.  He listens, he is open, he is smart, he is legally 
pristine, and he has been a fine leader for the committee.  
	
I believed  Senator Specter, working with Senator Leahy and the 
members of the Judiciary Committee, would be able to build 
consensus, to reach compromise, and deliver legislation that the 
American people could be confident represented bipartisan 
agreement, not politics.  
	
My confidence in Senators Specter and Leahy and my colleagues 
on the committee was well placed.  In July, the committee 
unanimously reported the bill favorably, and shortly thereafter the 
Senate, again unanimously, passed the bill.  
	
Having a USA PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill, supported by 
Senators Cornyn and Schumer, Kyl and Feingold, Hatch, Kennedy, 
and every single Member of this body gave me great comfort, and 
I believe was an important step toward healing the divisive 
partisanship that has come to be associated with the bill.  
	
Unfortunately, that spirit seems to have ended.  The conference 
report process, instead of bringing unity, appears to have had the 
opposite result: dividing my colleagues by failing to adequately 
take into account differing views on elements of the bill.  The 
simple result is that in the next day we are likely to divide into two 
camps.  
	
In the end, of course, we will extend the PATRIOT Act's expiring 
provisions in some form because despite the rhetoric, nobody 
doubts that the provisions will be extended.  What is at issue is 
whether and to what extent modifications are made. 
	
What will be lost is the much needed sense that the PATRIOT Act 
represents a broad consensus.  That may be more important than 
the specific details of provisions and issues.  I believe it is.  The 
bottom line is that having a consensus bill is of paramount 
importance.  
Yesterday, I urged Majority Leader Frist to work as hard as he can 
to bring people back to the table before the vote.  The day before, I 
urged Attorney General Gonzales to work with Senators Leahy and 
Specter toward the same end.  I have said the same thing to 
Senators Specter and Leahy personally, and today I renew this 
request.  
	
Press reports today quote insiders saying that efforts to reach 
compromise have been abandoned.  Some seem to believe that a 
filibuster fight would be an opportunity to force Democrats into 
bad votes, thus securing partisan advantage in upcoming elections.  
	
Others seem to believe that the American people can be tricked 
into thinking that Members such as Senators Craig, Sununu, 
Murkowski, Hagel, Obama, Durbin, Feingold, Salazar, and Kerry, 
all of whom signed a moving letter yesterday explaining why they 
would vote against cloture, are somehow helping terrorists.  Still 
others, counting the votes, think the opportunity to embarrass the 
administration is too good to miss.  
	
I reject these positions.  Instead, I ask respectfully that we get back 
to work.  
	
I strongly urge my colleagues to carefully read the letter sent by 
this group of Senators.  While I do not agree with every one of 
their points, the key issues they raise have merit and should be 
addressed.
	
The most important of the issues they raise involve section 215 -- 
the so-called library provision -- and provisions governing judicial 
review, particularly of national security letters.  I believe on these 
two issues, as well as some of the others, continued good-faith 
negotiation will result in solving the problems in a way that will be 
acceptable to a vast majority of this body and will not in any way 
diminish the ability of our law enforcement and intelligence 
organizations to do their job. 
	
Congress has a long and honorable tradition of putting aside party 
politics when it comes to national security.  We were able to do 
that in the Senate with this bill.  So it is critical that this approach 
be carried forward to the end.
	
I believe the unanimously passed Senate bill represents that 
compromise.  And while I understand that some accommodations 
must be made to the House, these cannot be so great as to destroy 
the consensus in the Senate that we have built.  
	
I know that Senator Specter and Senator Leahy have worked long 
and hard.  I also know that Senator Leahy made some 
compromises to vote for the Senate bill that passed this body 
unanimously.  I asked Senator Specter and Senator Leahy to please 
try once again to achieve the compromise that we had when the 
Senate bill passed this body unanimously.  
	
I believe national security deserves no less, and I believe the 
distinguished leadership of the Judiciary Committee, Senator 
Specter and Senator Leahy, can achieve this if given the 
opportunity and if the leadership puts its clout behind bringing the 
House on board as well. 
	
Absent that, I will vote for the Sununu legislation to provide an 
element of time.  I also ask that the meth bill, as well as the port 
security bill, be added to his legislation.  I thank the ranking 
member and the chairman and I yield the floor.
			
			Sincerely yours,

			Dianne Feinstein
			United States Senator

http://feinstein.senate.gov

Further information about my position on issues of concern to Ca 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.