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.

Under the proposed 50/50 formula, utilities that are more coal dependent will need to purchase even more allowances than they would have if all allowances were allocated based on emissions.

Well, yeah. And under the current proposed 50/50 formula, the coal burners would also have to purchase more allowances than if Congress did nothing at all. But the whole point of the bill is to discourage the use of high-emission energies like coal by making them less affordable than cleaner alternatives. Sheppard explains further why the lawmakers’ argument makes little sense in the context of the global warming debate:

Of course, this would work against the entire logic of the proposed scheme, which is to offer utilities financial incentives to switch to lower-carbon fuel sources. [...]

Right now, the climate bill needs all the votes it can get from Democrats. So enviros worry that concessions to this bloc could ultimately result in a deal in which coal plants suffer no real penalties for the carbon they pump into the atmosphere. “Dirty coal polluters know their days are numbered and are lobbying for the largest piece of the pie they can get,” said Jason Kowalski, policy coordinator at 1Sky. “It goes against the spirit of this legislation to reward the polluters that caused this problem in the first place.”

Signing on to the letter were Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Russ Feingold (Wis.), Herb Kohl (Wis.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Al Franken (Minn.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Roland Burris (Ill.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Robert Byrd (W.Va.).

In a statement, the lawmakers cite the reasoning behind the proposal.

Under current law, possession of five grams of crack cocaine (roughly the weight of two sugar cubes) triggers a mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence, while trafficking 500 grams (approximately one pound) of powder cocaine triggers the same sentence. The so-called 100:1 sentencing disparity has been in place since 1986. The Fair Sentencing Act would eliminate the disparity, treating crack and powder cocaine equally.

Sen. Richard Durbin (Ill.), the upper chamber’s second-ranking Democrat, said passage of the bill is long overdue.

The sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine has contributed to the imprisonment of African Americans at six times the rate of whites and to the United States’ position as the world’s leader in incarcerations. Congress has talked about addressing this injustice for long enough; it’s time for us to act.

Other sponsors of the bill include Democratic Sens. Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), John Kerry (Mass.), Al Franken (Minn.), Ted Kaufman (Del.), Russ Feingold (Wis.), Ben Cardin (Md.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.).

In July, the House Judiciary Committee advanced a similar bill, sponsored by Rep. Robert Scott (D-Va.).

I asked Clay’s spokesman why the congressman had switched positions; he wasn’t immediately sure. But it might not matter for the anti-czar crusade, as Sen. Russ Feingold’s (D-Wis.) hearing on the issue provided all the bipartisan cover they could have asked for.

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.”

Get the full rundown here.

The slapdash nature of the anti-”czar” campaign from Republicans (not from the likes of Glenn Beck, who have been more targeted) has really been surprising. After the jump, for example, is the full video of a September 16 press conference where more than a dozen Republicans joined Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) to make the case against “czars.” It’s clear that few of them know how many so-called “czars” were given jobs without Senate confirmation.

T.J. Halstead, deputy assistant director of the Congressional Research Service’s American Law Division

John Harrison, University of Virginia School of Law

Bradley Patterson Jr., author of “To Serve the President”

Tuan Samahon, Villanova University School of Law

Matthew Spalding, Heritage Foundation

I am disappointed the Senate Finance Committee rejected amendments offered by Senator Rockefeller and Senator Schumer to include a public health insurance option in its health care reform legislation.  I have strongly supported a public health insurance option from the start as a way to increase competition in the health care industry and drive down costs.  A public health insurance option is key to ensuring every American is able to afford health insurance and without it, I don’t see how we will bring real reform to the system.  I will continue to work with my colleagues to include a public option in the bill when it comes to the Senate floor.

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution has scheduled a hearing on “Examining the History and Legality of Executive Branch ‘Czars’” for Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building.

No word yet on which experts will appear, but you’d be hard pressed to find a D.C. conservative or libertarian who’d turn it down.