As I reported yesterday, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) sent a letter asking the attorney general to produce information that’s been classified but which they feel is necessary to allowing Congress to decide whether certain provisions of the Patriot Act — specifically section 215, known as the “business records provision” — should be renewed in their current form. That provision now allows the government to obtain personal records of people who are not suspected of any connection to terrorism, so long as the FBI claims the records are “relevant” to some terrorism investigation.

Today, Holder said that “we are working on ways to make available to senators and congressmen the information needed to vote on the Patriot Act. … That information will be made available.”

“We’re deeply disappointed that the Obama administration sided with the committee Republicans to pass amendments to remove reforms from the already watered-down bill,” he said this afternoon, referring to seven amendments, five of which were introduced by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-S.C.), which removed civil liberties protections and which Sessions said were mostly recommended by the Obama administration’s FBI and Justice Department in closed-door classified briefings.

“We’re very disappointed in the final bill that was voted out of committee,” said Bankston. “It has fewer reforms than the original bill from Sen. Leahy, and it’s a very far cry from Sen. Feingold and Durbin’s JUSTICE Act.” The JUSTICE Act would have required the government to specify more clearly the targets of their investigations and their connections to terrorism, to keep the FBI from using its authority to engage in broad-based data-mining of Americans’ phone, library and business records.

The amendments adopted included removing a requirement that the FBI periodically review its gag orders on National Security Letter recipients, removed judicial review for those gag orders, and watered down an effort to heighten the showing required when the FBI is seeking library records. The text of the final amendments and votes on each is available on the Judiciary Committee’s Website here.

Bankston was also disappointed that the Judiciary Committee refused to consider amendments to the FISA Amendments Act passed last year, which he calls “a much graver threat to civil liberties.” Feingold’s attempt to offer an amendment was withdrawn when Committee Chairman Leahy said he’d oppose it on procedural grounds.

To Bankston, this was all evidence that Congress is far too willing to cave to the wishes of a Democratic administration, even if its proposals are just as bad for the civil liberties of Americans as the Republican administration’s were.

“In 2005, the Judiciary Committee was able to pass much stronger reforms under a Republican administration,” said Bankston. “Now, in a position of power and with a vaunted supermajority, the Democrats are still bargaining against themselves rather than having a united front and introducing new civil liberties protections. I think it’s because of the White House’s position that these powers need to be renewed. There’s an unwillingness to consider even minor reforms.”

The American Civil Liberties Union was similarly disappointed, and Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, came out with this statement this afternoon:

We are disappointed that further changes were not made to ensure Americans’ civil liberties would be adequately protected by this Patriot Act legislation. This truly was a missed opportun Sity for the Senate Judiciary Committee to right the wrongs of the Patriot Act and stand up for Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights. The meager improvements made during this markup will certainly be overshadowed by allowing so many horrible amendments to be added to an already weak bill. Congress cannot continue to make this mistake with the Patriot Act again and again. We urge the Senate to adopt amendments on the floor that will bring this bill in line with the Constitution.

Amendments proposed by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) that would have required that the target of a National Security Letter have some alleged connection to terrorism, and by Sens. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) that would have eliminated the “lone wolf” provision that allows surveillance of suspects with no suspected link to a known foreign terrorist organization, were defeated.

Much of the justification cited by Senators who supported the broad surveillance powers contained in the bill was based on classified briefings from the FBI and Justice Department. Feingold, who drew different conclusions from those briefings, lamented that the information about how the Patriot Act has been used remains classified.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who in the past has expressed concerns that parts of the Patriot Act violate the Fourth Amendment’s “search and seizure” clause, didn’t say a word at the markup session. He voted in favor of the Leahy-Feinstein bill renewing the expiring provisions of the Patriot Act.

Update: Here’s the final committee vote:

Aye: Kohl, Feinstein, Schumer, Cardin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Kaufman, Franken, Kyl, Cornyn

Nay: Feingold, Durbin, Specter, Sessions, Hatch, Grassley, Graham, Coburn

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.)  just made a key point in response:

I’m just concerned about the role of a Judiciary Committee that whenever the FBI says it doesn’t work for them that’s it, end of debate. Or when the prosecutor says something, that’s it. We’re not the Prosecutor Committee, we’re the Judiciary Committee. It seems to me that whenever an investigator says something or prosecutor says something, that’s the end of the debate. I don’t buy it, that’s not our job.

The committee just dropped the word “articulable” from the standard, on the recommendation of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). So now the FBI would have to have specific facts supporting its belief that the information sought has some relevance to a national security investigation, it just doesn’t have to be able to tell anyone what those facts are. Of course, since the law doesn’t require it to tell anyone outside the FBI, as a practical matter, the amendment doesn’t really make much difference.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) (Zuma Press)

Republicans and Democrats have been sniping about the USA Patriot Act ever since Congress passed the law in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks to try to forestall another such disaster. But now, it’s the Democrats who are sniping among themselves about it. While some lawmakers, like Sens. Russ Feingold and Dick Durbin, have insisted that Congress must amend the law to rein in the FBI’s powers to snoop into innocent private activities, other Democratic lawmakers, such as Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Patrick Leahy, have resisted significant reforms.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Three provisions of the law will expire by the end of this year if they’re not renewed, and have been the subject of recent hearings. Those are: the “roving wiretap” provision, which allows the government to tap  phones and other electronic devices used by any person suspected of involvement in terrorism; section 215 of the Patriot Act, which allows the government to obtain a broad range of business records and other tangible things, including library records, subscription information and credit card statements, so long as the FBI shows these are “relevant” to some terrorist investigation; and the so-called “lone wolf” provision, which allows the government to wiretap any suspect believed to be involved in terrorism, even if that person has no connection to any known terrorist organization.

The other controversial provisions include the FBI’s authority to issue National Security Letters, or NSLs, which seek a broad range of information from businesses about their customers but do not require a warrant or any other court order; and the “sneak and peak law”, which allows the FBI to search a suspect’s home without informing the target that they’ve been searched.

Civil liberties advocates insist these provisions are all too broad as currently written, and allow the FBI to abuse its authority to conduct wide-scale “data mining” of the general population, searching innocent people’s records and personal information while the government tries to root out wrongdoing. Because in many cases it’s not clear how the government is using its broad authority and who gets access to the information, privacy advocates worry that the government could retain such information and use it in ways unconnected to terrorism investigations.

A 2007 report from the FBI Inspector General concluded that the FBI had issued almost 150,000 NSL requests between 2003 and 2005, often collecting information about people not even suspected of having done anything illegal. The Inspector General also found that the FBI’s record-keeping was so poor that it often didn’t know how many letters it has issued, and requested information it wasn’t entitled to receive.

Advocates worry that many sections of the Patriot Act allow similar abuses. “The concern is that the changes the Patriot Act made were such that so long as the FBI agent certifies that the information they’re seeking is relevant to a terror investigation, they can get it,” explained Farhana Khera, Executive Director of Muslim Advocates, which recently sued the government for more information about FBI surveillance practices. “We argue that’s way too broad. It should be tied to a suspected terrorist or terrorist activity.” The FBI’s current authority “has unleashed concerns about the FBI getting access to data on literally millions and millions of Americans,” she said.

Advocates for Muslim-Americans also worry that the laws are being used to target and harass law-abiding American muslims, landing them on no-fly lists, preventing them from getting hired for federal jobs, or deterring them from contributing to legal charitable organizations that assist needy Muslims in other countries.

To address these problems, in mid-September, Feingold and Durbin, both of whom have long expressed concerns about the Patriot Act, introduced the JUSTICE Act (Judiciously Using Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts), which would renew section 215 and the roving wiretap provisions, but would require the government to provide more justification for using them, and to specify more clearly the targets of their investigation.

The bill would also rein in the FBI’s authority to issue National Security Letters by requiring the government to specify what it’s looking for and how the information is relevant to an ongoing national security investigation. Meanwhile, it would repeal the part of the FISA Amendments Act that immunized telecommunications companies such as AT&T that assisted the government in its warrantless wiretapping program.

But a week later, to the dismay of many civil libertarians, Sen. Leahy introduced the USA Patriot and Sunset Extension Act. Cosponsored by Sens. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) and Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), it would extend the expiring provisions with only minor modifications, and would leave the “lone wolf” and “roving wiretap” provisions intact. It also would not include any reforms to the FISA Amendments Act.

By the time of the Senate markup session last week, Sen. Leahy, the Judiciary Committee Chairman, had produced a substitute version of his bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the Intelligence subcommittee. This bill became the basis for the markup, effectively destroying the chances for adoption of the JUSTICE bill, although pieces of it could still be introduced as amendments.

Civil liberties advocates quickly expressed their disappointment. The American Civil Liberties Union called it “a watered-down version” of the original Leahy bill. Kevin Bankston of Electronic Frontier Foundation similarly described it as having “even fewer PATRIOT reforms than the original Leahy bill.”  Although Feingold and Durbin offered amendments, the only one that succeeded was one amending the “sneak and peak” provision. The amendment would require the government to notify the subject of a search within seven days, instead of 30, as the law stands now. An amendment offered by Senator Durbin to narrow the broad Section 215 powers, which now allows the government to gain access to “any tangible thing,” failed.

Even Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who at the recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing took the time to read the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to Justice Department official David Kris, voted to support the Leahy-Feinstein substitute bill, and against the Durbin and Feingold amendments.

Feingold has repeatedly expressed concern that the government is not providing enough information for the public to know how the Patriot Act is being used.

“I remain concerned that critical information about the implementation of the Patriot Act remains classified,” said Feingold at a recent hearing, noting that he believes that much of that classified information “would have a significant impact on the debate.” Although the Justice Department recently acknowledged that the “lone wolf” authority has never been used, said Feingold, “there also is information about the use of Section 215 orders that I believe Congress and the American people deserve to know.”

Some representatives in the House, where they’re also debating changes to the Patriot Act and will eventually put forward their own bill, feel the same way. Earlier this week, Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and Bobby Scott (D-Va.) wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking for more information about how Section 215 orders have been used to help inform the House debate. (Eventually, the House and Senate bills to amend the Patriot Act will have to be reconciled before they go to the President for his signature.)

Although Feinstein has cited classified information as her reason for supporting the re-authorization of section 215 as is, Feingold disagrees. The Feingold amendment would have limited what kinds of records could be obtained under section 215, and required that the government show that those records are related either to terrorist activities, or to people in contact with a terrorist.

Interestingly, notes Michelle Richardson, legislative consultant to the ACLU, during the Patriot Act reauthorization process in 2005, “Democrats and Republicans supported amendments to section 215 to limit it to terrorist activities,” she said. “But now they don’t.”

The problem with reauthorizing many of these provisions, says Richardson, is that “we don’t know what information they’re getting, how much, and who has access,” she said. “But we believe that anytime you get the information, it’s a violation. These are principles over 200 years old in this country, that government should not be getting this information about you unless they have reason to believe you’ve done something wrong.”

That principle is increasingly being discarded. Attorney General Guidelines issued at the end of the Bush administration, for example, eliminated the requirement that the FBI must have reason to believe the target of an investigation has committed a crime before initiating that investigation.

“Who knows if the information comes back to haunt you,” said Richardson. “If you apply for federal student aid, for a federal job, or end up on a no-fly list. We don’t know who has access to the information, and where it’s supposed to go. That’s not how things are supposed to work in this country.”

On Thursday, the markup session will continue in the Senate Judiciary Committee, as specifics on the bill get hammered out. Much of the critical information necessary to determine how it’s working, though, will remain secret.

According to the ACLU, the committee substituted the original language of the bill with “a watered-down version” offered by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.).  An alternative bill, sponsored by Feingold and Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), known as the JUSTICE Act, would have added civil liberties protections not only to the Patriot Act but also to other surveillance laws.

Earlier today, Feingold similarly expressed disappointment that the bill currently being debated in the committee would not adequately provide information about how the FBI is using its authority, and would not sufficiently limit the use of national security letters, which allow the FBI to obtain customer information from businesses and prevent them from disclosing the requests to their customers.

It is important to note that the case reargued today does not affect the core of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law – the ban on large, unregulated donations to the political parties by corporations, unions and wealthy individuals. Nonetheless, at stake in this case are the voices of millions and millions of Americans that could be drowned out by large corporations if the decades-old restrictions on corporate electioneering are called into question. Overturning the Austin decision would open the floodgates to unlimited corporate spending during elections and undermine election laws across the country. Those able to spend tens of millions of dollars, like a Fortune 500 company, are much more likely to be heard during an election than average American voters.

It was just six years ago that the Supreme Court upheld the electioneering communications provision in McCain-Feingold and nothing has happened in that time to warrant the drastic step of overruling that decision. During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts, whom we both voted for, promised to respect precedent. If he casts the deciding vote to overrule Austin and McConnell, it would completely contradict that promise, and could have serious consequences for our democracy.

“As a United States Senator, you stated clearly and correctly that the warrantless wiretapping program was illegal,” writes Feingold. “Your Attorney General expressed the same view, both as a private citizen and at his confirmation hearing.”

Feingold continues:

It is my hope that you will formally confirm this position as president, which is why I sent you a letter on April 29, 2009, urging your administration to withdraw the unclassified and highly flawed January 19, 2006, Department of Justice Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President (“NSA Legal Authorities WhitePaper “), as well as to withdraw and declassify any other memoranda providing legal justifications for the program. Particularly in light of two recent events, I am concerned that failure to take these steps may be construed by those who work for you as an indication that these justifications were and remain valid.

Feingold notes that in addition to Blair’s comments,

I asked your nominee to be General Counsel for the Director of National Intelligence, whether, based on the “White Paper” and other public sources, he believed that the warrantless wiretapping program was legal. His written response to my question, which was presumably vetted by your administration, indicated that, because the program was classified, he could not offer an opinion. Should he be confirmed, this position, too, risks conveying to the Intelligence Community that there may be classified justifications for not complying with FISA.

In fact, although Barack Obama the Senator and presidential candidate repeatedly spoke against warrantless wiretapping as practiced by the NSA under President George W. Bush, as president, he has not been clear on the issue.  He’s sought to stymie at least one case involving claims of warrantless wiretapping on state secrets grounds, and urged a judge to dismiss a slew of lawsuits against telecom companies who allegedly cooperated with the Bush administration in the warrantless wiretapping program.

Recent reports also reveal that the NSA’s surveillance program “in recent months” exceeded legal limits, and pending lawsuits claim that warrantless wiretapping is continuing under Obama’s watch.

In his letter sent today, Feingold urged President Obama “to formally renounce the legal arguments behind the previous administration’s warrantless wiretapping and to demonstrate again your clear commitment to the rule of law in this area.”

In response to questions from Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Holder wrote:

I will review significant pending cases in which DOJ has invoked the state secrets privilege, and will work with leaders in other agencies and professionals at the Department of Justice to ensure that the United States invokes the state secrets privilege only in legally appropriate situations.

And also:

I firmly believe that transparency is a key to good government.  Openness allows the public to have faith that its government obeys the law.

As for the disclosure of Office of Legal Counsel opinions, which the ACLU, among others, has been pushing the Justice Department to turn over, Holder wrote:

“Once the new Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel is confirmed, I plan to instruct that official to review the OLC’s policies relating to publication of its opinions with the [objective] of making its opinions available to the maximum extent consistent with sound practice and competing concerns.”

Last week, the ACLU made its case for disclosure in a letter the Justice Department:

Releasing the memos would [...] signal to Americans, and to the world, that you intend to turn the page on an era in which the OLC served not as a source of objective legal advice but as a facilitator for the executive’s lawless conduct.

We’ll see how Holder and the Obama administration live up to those promises when they respond to the Jeppesen case I wrote about last week – scheduled for oral argument on Monday — as well as several important FOIA cases that I’ll be writing more about soon. Stay tuned.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) spoke briefly of his past questions in confirmation hearings of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. He asked Holder the same question he asked Gonzo, and I can guarantee their answers are totally different:

Feingold: What is your view of the president’s consititutional authority to authorize violations of the criminal law, duly enacted statutes, that may have been on the books for many years while acting as commander and chief?

Holder: The president, as I’ve said, is not above the law, has a constitutional obligation to follow the law and execute the laws that this Congress passes. If you look at the Steel Seizure concurrence of Justice Jackson, that sets out in really wonderful form the power the president has and where it is strongest and where it is weakest. It’s weakest in category three, where Congress has indicated something contrary to what the president wants to do. That is where Justice Jackson says the president’s power is at it’s lowest ebb, and I think, I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I think that there’s never been a president who’s been upheld when he tries to act in category three.

Earlier, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) brought up FISA and asked Holder if he supported it. Holder responded that he would support some aspects but not others calling it,  ”a very useful tool, a very essential tool for us in fighting terrorism.” When Feingold followed up, looking for support to take back congressional authority on FISA, he found it:

Feingold: Is there anything in the FISA statute that makes you believe that the president has the ability under some other inherent power to disregard the FISA statute?

Holder: No, I don’t see that in the FISA statute.

The senators, collectively, seem very thankful for Holder’s straightforward answers to their questions. You can tell that this is a very different kind of hearing than what they’re used to.