“Now in making this appearance, I should point out that I am taking into consideration a very profound belief, that I have expressed publicly on many occasions, in the vital necessity for the confidentiality of presidential communications,” Nixon said in an opening statement. “It seems to me today that when we pick up the papers, and particularly in recent weeks, and read of former presidents, President Kennedy, for example, President Johnson, even President Eisenhower, being accused of approving or participating in discussions in which there was approval of assassination of other people is very much not in the national interest, and probably it is, of course, not true.”

There were no drones back then targeting untried suspected enemies of the U.S., but there were approved assassination attempts, as Nixon well knew.

Nixon expands on the need for secrecy:

“Nevertheless it makes the point very strongly that I am going to make right now, and that is that in the Office of the Presidency of the United States, the nation, which is, not by choice, but by the destiny of history, the most powerful in the free world and the only guarantee of peace and freedom in the world, it is necessary for the president to have no- holds-barred conversations with his advisers.

It is necessary for his advisers to believe that they can give him their unvarnished opinions without regard and without fear of the possibility that those opinions are going to be spread in the public print. It is necessary for them to feel, in other words, that they are talking to the President and that they are not going to the press and that is the reason why confidentiality, which I know, not perhaps you gentlemen, but some of the members of your staff, and certainly some of the members of the House and Senate, and most of the members of the press think is not important. That is why it is important and, in my opinion, absolutely vital. That is the reason why I have resisted in the courts, unsuccessfully up to this point, attempts to impinge upon the privileged status of such conversations.”

The transcripts are available for Scribd perusing or download here.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

As far as introducing new legislation, Rubio has been fairly quiet. So far, he has been responsible for one piece of legislation, an amendment to an air traffic control bill that would prevent the expansion of flight itineraries in countries that sponsor terrorism. Since becoming a senator in January, Rubio has voted in opposition of the implementation of health care reform through a number of resolutions and amendments, and has voted for extending provisions of the PATRIOT Act and blocking Transportation Security Administration employees from collective bargaining (of course, the involvement of the Koch brothers in the national fight over collective bargaining is well documented). That’s the extent of his U.S. Senate voting record, but he’s been vocal about his support for other bills, and it’s there that his benefit to Koch Industries comes into focus.

Koch Industries has three major operations in Florida: Georgia-Pacific, Flint Hills Resources and Koch Chemical Technology Group. Of those, the paper company Georgia-Pacific has come into the most heated conflict with environmental regulations. Flint Hills is an oil refinery operation that has been fined by the Environmental Protection Agency for violations of the Clean Air Act in the past, though it was also commended by the EPA in 2005 for cutting emissions. Koch Chemical Technology primarily makes pollution control equipment that can be used to ensure compliance with EPA regulations.

Rubio has stated his opposition to cap-and-trade regulations that would reward companies for limiting emissions and tax those that don’t. Cap and trade could have a major impact on the Flint Hills operation in Rubio’s backyard, but it could have even larger repercussions for Koch Industries outfits in other states. Koch Industries has spent hundreds of millions in the past in fines for EPA violations and costs incurred in bringing factories up to emissions standards.

And as a pitched battle continues to heat up in Florida over Georgia-Pacific’s objections to EPA water standards, Rubio has made known his opposition to the same. The sugar conglomerate Flo-Sun, another major backer of Rubio’s campaign, has also had its own battles with the EPA over water pollution standards. Rubio has couched his opposition to regulations in terms of job creation, but opponents have argued that failing to enact environment regulations could ultimately cost jobs for Florida in some of its flagship industries (more on that later).

It’s unclear how Rubio’s constituents feel about his vigorous opposition to EPA regulation, as no polls have been conducted by an independent body to find out. The only poll available is one showing 68 percent of Floridians and climbing oppose EPA water regulations; however, the poll simply asked if Floridians would oppose water quality regulations if they resulted in a $700 increase in the average home water bill. That number was based on industry estimates of industrial wastewater regulation costs that the EPA has disputed.

In November, the Florida Independent obtained an internal email from Phil Coram, a deputy director of water resource management with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Coram stated that industry estimates were overblown because they were based on the wrong assumption that all wastewater sites would have to comply with regulations; that they left out the fact that many companies would have cheaper options than expensive conversions for managing their wastewater; and that “some of their math is wrong.” This is coming from within a state agency that has itself been accused of kowtowing to industry interests.

On Rubio’s own site, he uses a Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services figure stating that the wastewater regulations in question would cost over $1.1 billion annually. Such an annual cost, though a great deal higher than EPA estimates, would result in an annual water bill increase of around $157 if divided evenly among all households in Florida — far lower than $700, but even the lower figure doesn’t account for the fact that industrial facilities use a lot more water than individuals, nor does it account for the vast number of seasonal households in Florida whose owners live elsewhere for large parts of the year. Indeed, the EPA figures reported by the St. Johns Riverkeeper may not be far off: an increase more on the order of $40 to $71 a year for the average taxpayer.

Meanwhile, the Florida Independent today reports that failing to implement wastewater regulations would result in a proliferation of toxic algae that would have devastating effects. The brunt of these effects would be felt by individuals living near waterways and by small businesses in the food, hospitality and tourism industries that stake their livelihoods on the integrity of Florida’s environment.

In January 2010, McClatchy Newspapers petitioned the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) for a copy of an internal memo that evidently detailed the DOJ’s legal defense for obtaining the telephone records of American citizens and residents. McClatchy learned of the memo from a heavily redacted inspector general report on abuses of power that the FBI committed while seeking telephone records.

Now, a year on, the FBI and DOJ have declined to release the memo, even though it is a document that should be available to the public under the Freedom of Information Act. However, McClatchy reports the OLC’s cover letter to McClatchy newspapers does cite a section in a 1978 wiretapping law that the office contends gives the government legal authority to collect telephone records from telecommunications firms.

While McClatchy does not get more specific, that can only be the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which outlines procedures for gathering intelligence on communications between foreign governments and their contacts within the U.S. In 2001, the PATRIOT Act expanded the law to apply to those with connections not just to other governments, but to any foreign group seen as hostile toward the U.S., and a further revision to the law in 2008 (PDF) expanded the government’s legal authority to performance surveillance without a warrant. Although the original law actually prohibits telecom companies from handing over phone records, the 2008 revisions also give those very companies immunity from lawsuits should they do so — meaning that if the FBI leans on, say, AT&T to disclose customer records, there is no incentive for it not to do so.

Kevin Bankston, a staff attorney and expert on electronic surveillance and national security laws for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, tells McClatchy the OLC’s defense could easily be expanded to include emails as well, as long as they are sent to international addresses. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice still refuses to release the original memo that McClatchy requested over a year ago.

H.R.514 was defeated yesterday with 277 members of Congress voting for the bill and 148 against. Because Republicans chose a process known as “expedited procedure,” that does not allow amendments to be introduced and limits debate of the bill to 40 minutes, a two-thirds majority was needed to pass the bill.

North Carolina Democrats Heath Shuler, Larry Kissell, Mike McIntyre and Brad Miller voted for the extension of certain provisions in the post-9/11 surveillance law along with Republican members Howard Coble, Renee Ellmers, Virginia Foxx, Patrick McHenry and Sue Myrick.

Republican Walter Jones joined Democrats David Price and Mel Watt in voting against the bill. G.K. Butterfield did not vote.

Republicans are expected to re-introduce the bill in the House under normal rules in the next few days, and seem to have the numbers to easily pass the bill with a majority vote. The Obama administration also supports extending the provisions through December 2013.

The American Civil Liberties Union, a backer of expiration, sums up the provisions of the bill that are set to expire later this month:

* Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the government to obtain “any tangible thing” relevant to a terrorism investigation, even if there is no showing that the “thing” pertains to suspected terrorists or terrorist activities. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require the government to show reasonable suspicion or probable cause before undertaking an investigation that infringes upon a person’s privacy. Congress must ensure that things collected with this power have a meaningful nexus to suspected terrorist activity or it should be allowed to expire.

* Section 206 of the Patriot Act, also known as “roving John Doe wiretap” provision, permits the government to obtain intelligence surveillance orders that identify neither the person nor the facility to be tapped. This provision is contrary to traditional notions of search and seizure, which require government to state with particularity what it seeks to search or seize. Section 206 should be amended to mirror similar and longstanding criminal laws that permit roving wiretaps, but require the naming of a specific target. Otherwise, it should expire.

* Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, or the so-called “Lone Wolf” provision, permits secret intelligence surveillance of non-US persons who are not affiliated with a foreign organization. Such an authorization, granted only in secret courts is subject to abuse and threatens our longtime understandings of the limits of the government’s investigatory powers within the borders of the United States. This provision has never been used and should be allowed to expire outright.

Update, 4:25 p.m. EST: The House will vote on extension again next week. The vote will be under a closed rule, which means no amendments are allowed, and will require a simple majority to pass.

Perhaps the speed with which their old statements has vanished down the memory hole says something about the hopelessness of their cause, but that’s no reason to deny them credit for their principled stands, which won them some enemies on the right.

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.”

Section 215 of the Patriot Act, known as the “business records provision,” relaxed the previous standard the government had to meet to obtain personal information from banks, hospitals, libraries, retail stores and other institutions. Previously, the government had to show that it had evidence that the person whose records it sought was a terrorist or spy. With passage of the Patriot Act, that standard was lowered to permit the government to collect any records it considered “relevant to an investigation.”

Wyden, Feingold and Durbin have been arguing that the relevance standard is far too broad and violates the privacy rights of ordinary law-abiding Americans. But they also claim that the government is withholding key information from Congress that would allow lawmakers to make an informed judgment about the issue. Although it’s not clear exactly what information they’re talking about, since even a description of the information is classified, it would seem to be information about how the government has used the business records provision, and what evidence it has obtained by its use.

As Jennifer Hoelzer, Wyden’s communications director, said in an e-mail: “The fact that I can’t in anyway characterize the information in itself highlights the problem and why we believe it is so essential that the Justice Department declassify this information. Senators should know what they are voting on.”

Here’s part of what Wyden wrote in The Huffington Post on this issue a few weeks ago:

I have served on the Senate Intelligence Committee for eight years, and I have yet to see evidence — classified or otherwise — that has convinced me that revising the business records provision to include a less intrusive standard would be harmful to U.S. national security. Yet as Congress considers whether to reauthorize this standard — written in a rush to judgment eight years ago — some will undoubtedly argue that Congress should just trust that the provision is essential and blindly sign-off on reauthorization. I disagree. While “just trust us” has passed as informed national security debate in this country for eight years, it hasn’t resulted in good national security policy.

The senators’ latest letter to the attorney general on this issue is here.

The USA Patriot Act was quickly pushed through Congress shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and the Times notes today that its “excessive powers” allowed for an “overly expansive snooping regime.” Although a few Senators — notably Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and, perhaps surprisingly, Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) — worked hard to rein in those excesses by trying to limit those powers only for use against people actually suspected of engaging in international terrorism, most senators, as revealed in today’s markup session, were convinced by closed-door briefings with the FBI and Justice Department that most of the surveillance authority in the Patriot Act should be renewed.

While the Times said the bill taking shape in the Senate allows for “excesses that contribute nothing to making America safer,” Feinstein this morning called that “dead wrong,” but based her reasoning on a classified briefing she could not discuss.

Feingold, however, who was also privy to that briefing, strongly disagreed. Objecting to “the overall tone of what’s happening in this legislation,” he said, “The New York Times is absolutely right, that this bill is moving in the wrong direction.”

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.

So far, much of the debate is focusing on whether and to what extent the law should be focused on investigations of foreign terrorists, as opposed to being open to be used for ordinary domestic law enforcement. Given that the Patriot Act was passed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to prevent another one, Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) have all come out strongly in favor of requiring some nexus to international terrorism.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and others all appear to be leaning towards the view of the FBI and Justice Department, which has told the senators in classified sessions that the broader versions of the Patriot Act provisions are necessary to combat terrorism.