U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message

Dear Mr.:

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.