Congressional Record: February 25, 2003 (Senate)
Page S2703-S2712
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Specter):
S. 436. A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 to improve the administration and oversight of foreign
intelligence surveillance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today, joined by my good friends,
Senators Grassley and Specter, to introduce the Domestic Surveillance
Oversight Act of 2003. This bill does not change or diminish any power
available to the government in the pursuit of homeland security, but it
does create important mechanisms to allow the Congress and the public
to assess how effectively and appropriately the government is using its
domestic surveillance powers.
I also rise to speak about an important bipartisan report being
released today by myself, Senator Specter, and Senator Grassley
entitled "FBI Oversight in the 107th Congress by the Senate Judiciary
Committee: FISA Implementation Failures," "FIF Report". The report
summarizes our joint conclusions based upon our bipartisan oversight of
the FBI and DOJ's performance in using the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, "FISA", an important tool in conducting domestic
surveillance. The report distills our mutual findings and conclusions
from numerous bipartisan hearings, classified briefings and other
oversight activities. It concludes that the FBI continues to be in need
of serious reform. The report also sets forth our bipartisan
disappointment with the DOJ and FBI's non-responsiveness to our
oversight efforts and the resulting necessity for better oversight
tools, such as the bill we introduce today.
Our committee worked with the FBI and the Justice Department to
achieve initial reforms both through administrative steps and also
through legislation. Most notably, last fall we enacted a new
Department of Justice charter that included some provisions of the FBI
Reform Act. We need to enact the rest of that bipartisan bill.
Taken together, this bill and report represent a bipartisan statement
about the importance of oversight and, where possible, sunshine on the
government's domestic surveillance efforts. Only by fulfilling our
constitutional responsibility to conduct such oversight, can we in
Congress help to protect both the security and the liberty of the
American people.
In times of national stress there is an understandable impulse for
the government to ask for more power. Sometimes more power is needed,
but many times it is not. After the September 11 attacks, we worked
together in a bipartisan fashion and with unprecedented speed to craft
and enact the USA PATRIOT Act which enhanced the government's powers.
Now, as word continues to circulate about a possible sequel to the
USA PATRIOT Act that the Department of Justice is considering in secret
and that supposedly would give government even more power, it is
constructive for us to first examine and understand how Federal
agencies are using the power they already have. We must answer two
questions.
First, is that power being used effectively, so that our citizens not
only feel safer, but are in fact safer?
Second, is that power being used appropriately, so that our liberties
are not sacrificed?
In short, before we can craft and enact new laws, we must first make
sure that the Department of Justice and FBI are properly using the laws
that are already on the books. That is the purpose of enhanced
Congressional oversight.
Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act:
Today, with the Senior Senator from Iowa and the Senior Senator from
[[Page S2704]]
Pennsylvania, I am introducing the bipartisan Domestic Surveillance
Oversight Act of 2003. This bill provides basic information to Congress
and the American people about the FBI's use of FISA to conduct
surveillance on Americans. Such domestic surveillance is certainly
appropriate in some cases, and the bill does not intrude in any way
upon law enforcement or diminish its ability to conduct FISA
surveillance when necessary and appropriate. Nor does it require the
Department of Justice to publicly release any sensitive or classified
information. Rather, it seeks reporting only on the aggregate number of
FISA wiretaps and other surveillance measures directed specifically
against Americans each year. In this way, the public and Congress can
assess over time whether the government has turned more of its powerful
surveillance techniques on its own citizens, as opposed to non-U.S.
persons. If necessary, we can ask it to explain its actions.
The amendment also clarifies that the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, FISC, and FISA Court of Review have the authority
to adopt rules and procedures, and it requires that those rules be
shared with the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of the Senate and
House of Representatives as well as the Supreme Court. In the last
year, and only after requests from Senators Grassley, Specter and
myself, the FISC shared its rules with Congress for the first time. One
of those rules and one which was eventually rejected by the FISA Review
Court embodied a controversial legal interpretation of a provision we
crafted in the USA PATRIOT Act. The Congress ought to have been
immediately informed of that court rule either by the FISC or the DOJ,
but it was not. It is entirely appropriate that a court be enabled to
promulgate its own rules. It is entirely inappropriate that those rules
be kept secret from Congress.
Consistent with national security, the bill directs the Attorney
General to include in an annual public report the portions of
applications to and opinions of the FISC and FISA Court of Review that
contain significant legal interpretations of FISA or the Constitution.
These disclosures will not include the facts of any particular case,
which this provision requires to be redacted in order to preserve
national security. This type of disclosure, however, will prevent
secret case law from developing which interprets both FISA and the
Constitution in ways unknown to the Congress and the public.
The first annual report required under this provision is also to
include the same type of legal information for the four years before
the year of the first report.
Finally, the bill would require a report to appropriate committees of
Congress on the use of National Security Letters to request information
from public libraries or libraries affiliated with high schools or
universities. Such letters are functionally equivalent to an
administrative subpoena and require no court approval. We have heard
from members of the library community that the FBI may be returning to
a discredited practice from the Hoover days of monitoring public and
college libraries to ascertain what books people are reading. In fact,
a media report from Vermont, which I ask consent to place in the
Record, indicates that bookstore owners there are scared to keep
records for just this reason. Again, this provision would not in any
way limit the use of National Security Letters, but would merely
require an annual report of such activities to Congress, so that we can
ascertain whether or not these administrative subpoenas are being used
for improper purposes. This section would also ensure that reports on
the use of such letters are provided to all appropriate oversight
committees.
This enhanced reporting is exactly what was called for by the
American Bar Association in a resolution adopted on February 10, and
echoed in a Washington Post editorial on February 12, 2003. As the Post
editorialized, the Department of Justice "needs to disclose how it is
using the [powers] it already has. Yet the Justice Department has
balked at reasonable oversight and public information requests . . .
Congress should insist on a full understanding of what the [D]epartment
is doing." I ask unanimous consent to print a copy both of the ABA
resolution as well as the Washington Post editorial in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Adopted February 10, 2003:
Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities (lead
sponsor); Section of Litigation; Section of Criminal Justice,
Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice;
Section of International Law and Practice; Section of Science
and Technology Law; Young Lawyers Division.
Resolved, That the American Bar Association urges the
Congress to conduct regular and timely oversight, including
public hearings (except when Congress determines that the
requirements of national security make open proceedings
inappropriate), to ensure that government investigations
undertaken pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. ("FISA" or "the Act") do not
violate the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the
Constitution and adhere to the Act's purposes of
accommodating and advancing both the government's interest in
pursuing legitimate intelligence activity and the
individual's interest in being free from improper government
intrusion.
Further resolved, That the American Bar Association urges
the Congress to consider amendments to the Act to
(1) Clarify that the procedures adopted by the Attorney
General to protect United States persons, as required by the
Act, should ensure that FISA is used when the government has
a significant (i.e. not insubstantial) foreign intelligence
purpose, as contemplated by the Act, and not to circumvent
the Fourth Amendment; and
(2) Make available to the public an annual statistical
report on FISA investigations, comparable to the reports
prepared by the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 2519, regarding the use of
Federal wiretap authority.
____
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 12, 2003]
Patriot Act: The Sequel
The Justice Department's draft of a second round of law
enforcement and domestic security authorities--a kind of
sequel to the USA Patriot Act of 2001--offers an unintended
glimpse of additional powers that the Bush administration if
coveting. The draft, labeled "CONFIDENTIAL--NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION" and dated Jan. 9, was obtained last week by
the Center for Public Integrity, Washington-based nonprofit.
Department officials quickly stressed that it is not a final
version. But the document's proposals may become the next
battlefield in the struggle to preserve American liberties
while enabling the domestic war on terrorism. The proposals
range from constructive to dangerous.
A government DNA database for terrorists and suspected
terrorists could be useful, though it would need refinement
to protect suspects who are proved innocent. Another useful
proposal would allow the special appeals court that reviews
government surveillance requests in national security cases
to appoint lawyers to argue against the government. Under
current law, it hears only from one side. The draft would
create a federal crime for terrorist hoaxes, which now must
be prosecuted under provisions designed for other purposes.
But the draft contains many troubling provisions. It would
further expand intelligence surveillance powers into the
traditional realm of law enforcement. Like a Senate bill soon
to be taken up by the Judiciary Committee, it would allow
foreigners suspected of terrorism to be watched as
intelligence targets--rather than subjects of law
enforcement--even if they could not be linked to any foreign
group or state. But it would go further. It would allow
intelligence surveillance in certain circumstances even when
the government could not produce any evidence of a crime. It
also would allow certain snooping with no court
authorization, not only--as now--when Congress declared war
but when it authorized force or when the country was
attacked. The result of such changes would be to magnify the
government's discretion to pick the legal regime under which
it investigates and prosecutes national security cases and to
give it more power unilaterally to exempt people from the
protections of the justice system and place them in a kind of
alternative legal world. Congress should be pushing in the
opposite direction.
Before the department asks Congress for more powers, it
needs to disclose how it is using the ones it already has.
Yet the Justice Department has balked at reasonable oversight
and public information requests. In fact, the draft
legislation would allow the department to withhold
information concerning the identity of Sept. 11 detainees--a
matter now before the courts. At the very least, Congress
should insist on a full understanding of what the department
is doing before granting the executive branch still more
authority.
This bill does not in any way diminish the government's powers, but
it does allow Congress and the public to monitor their use. We cannot
fight terrorism effectively or safely with the lights turned out and
with little or no accountability. It is time to harness the power of
the sun to enable us to better win this fight.
[[Page S2705]]
FIF Report: The wisdom of this bill is also supported by our
bipartisan report, which Senators Specter, Grassley, and I also release
today, based on a year of bipartisan effort.
Today's FBI oversight report focuses on the use of the immense powers
granted under FISA. We expanded the government's FISA powers after
September 11 in the USA PATRIOT Act, a law that all three of us had a
hand in crafting.
Unfortunately our hearings, briefings and other oversight revealed
that the FBI is ill-equipped to implement FISA. Nor are its problems
amenable to legal "quick fixes." In fact, many of these problems are
not unique to the FISA context, but echo broader and more systemic
problems that have plagued the FBI for years.
Here are a few of the report's basic conclusions: Poor training: Key
FBI agents and officials were inadequately trained in important aspects
of not only FISA, but also in fundamental aspects of criminal law.
Excessive secrecy: Secrecy regarding the most basic legal and
procedural aspects of the FISA have hurt, not helped, implementation of
FISA. Headquarters Bureaucracy: FBI headquarters often not only fails
to support the work of many of its best street agents, but it actually
sometimes hinders them in doing their important jobs. Culture of
Quashing Criticism: The FBI has a deep rooted culture of punishing
those who point out problems. Just yesterday, in fact, a DOJ Inspector
General's Report was released substantiating claims of retaliation
against FBI United Chief John Roberts for his approved appearance on 60
Minutes. More troubling, these allegations involved senior officials at
the FBI, including the head of the division official charged with
investigating claims of misconduct in the FBI. This culture has
materially hurt the FBI's intelligence operations.
Unfortunately, as our report describes in detail, we have run into
many roadblocks in conducting FBI oversight. Some obstacles were due to
a lack of cooperation by the Department of Justice and FBI. The FIF
Report outlines many prime examples supporting the necessity of the
increased reporting called for in the bill that I introduce with
Senators Grassley and Specter today. For instance, the FIF Report
describes how the FISC issued an unclassified opinion last May strongly
criticizing the DOJ and FBI and containing important legal
interpretations of FISA and the USA PATRIOT Act amendments to it. Even
after repeated requests by myself, Senator Specter and Senator Grassley
for a copy of this unclassified legal opinion, the DOJ refused to
provide us one. Eventually, the FISC, not DOJ, provided us with a copy
of this unclassified document and, again only at our request, copies of
the FISA Court of Review's argument and opinion were made public. I
hope that this resistance towards legitimate oversight will not be
shown in the future.
Sunlight is the best solvent for the sticky and ineffective machinery
of government, and it is the best disinfectant to discourage the abuse
of power. Our comprehensive FBI oversight has revealed that there is
much work to be done.
Effective oversight of the powers given to the government for
homeland security means fewer blank checks, and more checks and
balances.
I ask unanimous consent, that the text of the bill I am introducing,
a sectional analysis, and a letter of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the additional materials were ordered to
be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 436
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Domestic Surveillance
Oversight Act of 2003".
SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENTS TO FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT
OF 1978.
(a) Rules and Procedures for FISA Courts.--Section 103 of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1803) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
"(e)(1) The courts established pursuant to subsections (a)
and (b) may establish such rules and procedures, and take
such actions, as are reasonably necessary to administer their
responsibilities under this Act.
"(2) The rules and procedures established under paragraph
(1), and any modifications of such rules and procedures,
shall be recorded, and shall be transmitted to the following:
"(A) All of the judges on the court established pursuant
to subsection (a).
"(B) All of the judges on the court of review established
pursuant to subsection (b).
"(C) The Chief Justice of the United States.
"(D) The Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.
"(E) The Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
"(F) The Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives.
"(G) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the
House of Representatives.".
(b) Reporting Requirements.--(1) The Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is further
amended--
(A) by redesignating title VI as title VII, and section 601
as section 701, respectively; and
(B) by inserting after title V the following new title:
"TITLE VI--PUBLIC REPORTING REQUIREMENT
"public report of the attorney general
"Sec. 601. In addition to the reports required by sections
107, 108, 306, 406, and 502, in April of each year, the
Attorney General shall issue a public report setting forth
with respect to the preceding calendar year--
"(1) the aggregate number of United States persons
targeted for orders issued under this Act, including those
targeted for--
"(A) electronic surveillance under section 105;
"(B) physical searches under section 304;
"(C) pen registers under section 402; and
"(D) access to records under section 501;
"(2) the number of times that the Attorney General has
authorized that information obtained under such sections or
any information derived therefrom may be used in a criminal
proceeding;
"(3) the number of times that a statement was completed
pursuant to section 106(b), 305(c), or 405(b) to accompany a
disclosure of information acquired under this Act for law
enforcement purposes; and
"(4) in a manner consistent with the protection of the
national security of the United States--
"(A) the portions of the documents and applications filed
with the courts established under section 103 that include
significant construction or interpretation of the provisions
of this Act or any provision of the United States
Constitution, not including the facts of any particular
matter, which may be redacted;
"(B) the portions of the opinions and orders of the courts
established under section 103 that include significant
construction or interpretation of the provisions of this Act
or any provision of the United States Constitution, not
including the facts of any particular matter, which may be
redacted; and
"(C) in the first report submitted under this section, the
matters specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B) for all
documents and applications filed with the courts established
under section 103, and all otherwise unpublished opinions and
orders of that court, for the 4 years before the preceding
calendar year in addition to that year.".
(2) The table of contents for that Act is amended by
striking the items for title VI and inserting the following
new items:
"TITLE VI--PUBLIC REPORTING REQUIREMENT
"Sec. 601. Public report of the Attorney General.
"TITLE VII--EFFECTIVE DATE
"Sec. 701. Effective date.".
SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS OF CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF
SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES.
(a) Title 18, United States Code.--Section 2709(e) of title
18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: "The information shall include a
separate statement of all such requests made of institutions
operating as public libraries or serving as libraries of
secondary schools or institutions of higher education.".
(b) Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978.--Section
1114(a)(5)(C) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978
(12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(5)(C)) is amended to read as follows:
"(C)(i) On a semiannual basis the Attorney General shall
fully inform the congressional intelligence committees, the
Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives,
and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate concerning
all requests made pursuant to this paragraph.
"(ii) In the case of the semiannual reports required to be
submitted under clause (i) to the congressional intelligence
committees, the submittal dates for such reports shall be as
provided in section 507 of the National Security Act of 1947.
"(iii) In this subparagraph, the term `congressional
intelligence committees' has the meaning given that term in
section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
401a).".
(c) Fair Credit Reporting Act.--Section 625(h)(1) of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681u(h)(1)), as amended
by section 811(b)(8)(B) of the Intelligence Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-306), is further
amended--
(1) by striking "and the Committee on Banking, Finance and
Urban Affairs of the House of Representatives" and inserting
",
[[Page S2706]]
the Committee on Financial Services, and the Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives"; and
(2) by striking "and the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs of the Senate" and inserting ", the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate".
Sectional Analysis of the Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act of 2003
Sec. 1. Short title. The short title of the bill is the
"Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act of 2003."
Sec. 2. Additional Improvements to Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). This section amends FISA to
clarify the authority of the Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISC) and FISA Court of Review to establish such rules and
procedures as are reasonably necessary for their operation.
In addition, the bill requires the FISC and FISA Court of
Review to transmit such rules and procedures to the judges on
the FISC and Court of Review, the Chief Justice of the U.S.,
and the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees of the Senate
and House. Previously, these rules have not been provided to
Congress as a matter of course.
This section also adds to the public reporting requirements
in FISA. It directs the Attorney General (AG) to include in
the annual public report the aggregate number of U.S. persons
targeted for any type of order under the act.
The report will also include information about the
aggregate number of times FISA is being used for criminal
cases, to enhance oversight regarding the changes enacted in
the USA PATRIOT Act. The report will list the number of times
the AG authorized FISA information to be used in a criminal
proceeding or for law enforcement purposes.
Finally, "in a manner consistent with the protection of
national security," this section directs the report to
include the portions of applications to and opinions of the
FISC and FISA Court of Review that involve significant
construction or interpretation of FISA or the Constitution.
Such disclosures shall not include the facts of any
particular case which are to be redacted. The first annual
report is to include application and opinion information for
the four years preceding the year of the first report to
ensure that important legal interpretations, such as FISA
Court of Review opinion that was almost not made public last
summer, are publicly disseminated.
Sec. 3. Additional Improvements of Congressional Oversight
of Surveillance Activities. This section adds to a reporting
requirement to the House and Senate Judiciary and
Intelligence Committees on the use of National Security
Letters. The report will include a statement of requests for
information directed to public libraries or libraries
affiliated with high schools and universities. The section
also would ensure that current reports on the use of such
letters are provided to both the intelligence and judiciary
committees as well as updating the names of certain pertinent
committees that receive such reports. The section would allow
Congress to assess the validity of public reports that a long
discredited program of domestic library surveillance is being
revived.
February 25, 2003.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Senate Judiciary Committee, Russell Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Senate Judiciary Committee, Hart Senate Building, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
Senate Judiciary Committee, Hart Senate Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senators Leahy, Grassley and Specter: We write in
support of the Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act of 2003.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) authorizes
secret wiretaps and secret searches of the homes and offices
of Americans and other forms of data gathering for national
security reasons. While the initial enactment of FISA was an
appropriate accommodation of national security interests and
individual rights to privacy and due process, since its
initial enactment FISA has been expanded in ways that pose an
increased threat to individual rights. Moreover, FISA
surveillance authorities are now being used more and more;
indeed, it appears that the federal government carries out
more electronic surveillance under the authority of FISA than
under criminal rules.
Given the absolute secrecy of FISA searches and seizures,
mechanisms for public accountability are crucial to protect
rights of privacy--as well as to insure effective and
efficient use of this extraordinary authority. Your bill to
require public accounting of the number of US persons
subjected to surveillance under FISA, the number of times
FISA information is used for law enforcement purposes, and to
require disclosure of other information would be an important
step in providing for oversight and public scrutiny of these
extraordinary powers.
Disclosure of such information is important to informing
the American public and will not be harmful to the national
security, as it will not give any greater clues as to who is
being targeted, or the scope of the anti-terrorism efforts
than is already known from the Justice Department's own
extensive public descriptions of those efforts.
We commend you on your leadership on this issue and look
forward to working with you and your colleagues to achieve
appropriate policies for responding to terrorism and other
national security threats.
Laura W. Murphy,
Director, Washington National Office.
Timothy H. Edgar,
Legislative Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union.
James X. Dempsey,
Executive Director, Center for Democracy and Technology.
Kate Martin,
Director, Center for National Security Studies.
Morton H. Halperin,
Director, Open Society Policy Center.
____
[From the Burlington Free Press, Feb. 19, 2003]
Bookstore Owners Fight Disclosure Act
(By Cadence Mertz)
The gears turned in Laurie Kettler's mind as she
contemplated how the USA Patriot Act might affect the
bookstore she co-owns in St. Albans.
At first, she thought The Kept Writer Bookshop & Cafe had
no records that authorities could use to track what her
customers are reading. Then it dawned on her. Records of
online purchases stay in the system for a year. Authorities
could demand those records under a provision of the USA
Patriot Act passed in the wake of Sept. 11 to aid in tracking
down possible terrorists.
"I guess I'm going to need to do something about that,"
Kettler said of the online records. She doesn't want that
information to go to the federal government. "It just seems
like a violation of privacy."
Efforts to prevent police from obtaining blueprints of
their customers' reading habits are on other bookstore
owners' minds. Michael Katzenberg, co-owner of Bear Pond
Books in Montpelier, has purged lists of the books its
customers buy.
Other local bookstores cheer Katzenberg's decision. They
cite customer privacy and the First Amendment protecting
citizens' rights to free speech. The government is over-
stepping its bounds, and bookstore owners will go to lengths
to protect the very law that allows authors to publish
without censor.
"I support what he did, and I'm right there with him,"
said Mike DeSanto, co-owner of the Book Rack and
Children's Pages in Winooski, who declined to disclose
whether he has a list of his customers' reading
preferences. If he did have a list, he says, he would be
considering getting rid of it.
"This is wrong what they're doing," DeSanto said of the
USA Patriot Act.
Customers at Flying Pig Books in Charlotte participate in a
readers' club--after buying $100 of books patrons receive $10
off their next purchase, co-owner Josie Leavitt said. It is
unlikely the bookstore would purge that record, which has the
titles of customers' past purchases, because of its
usefulness, Leavitt said. Customers like to have a reminder
of what they have bought in the past, she said.
Faced with a request from law enforcement, Leavitt said the
bookstore would refuse to turn over the information. She
belongs to the American Booksellers Foundation for Free
Expression, the group that helped defend a Colorado bookstore
last year against just such an intrusion by law enforcement.
"That's what books are all about. Books represent freedom
and if people can't read they're not free," Leavitt said.
The Vermont Library Association agrees. The group sent a
letter to Vermont's congressional delegation describing the
provisions of the USA Patriot Act pertaining to libraries and
book stores as unconstitutional.
"They are dangerous steps toward the erosion of our most
fundamental civil liberties," the October letter reads in
part.
Peter Hall, U.S. attorney for Vermont, said the measure
would be used only in "very rare and limited and supervised
circumstances," Hall said. Bookstore owners can do what they
want with records of their customers' purchases, he said.
Borders Books & Music would review requests from
authorities on a case-by-case basis, said Tod Gross, manager
of the Burlington store. The national chain keeps no records
of customer purchases, except for special orders, and those
files are purged monthly, Gross said.
Two recent court cases have shown law enforcement's
willingness to seek records from bookstores.
Independent counsel Kenneth Starr attempted to obtain a
list of the books Monica Lewinsky had bought from a
Washington, D.C. bookstore while investigating former
President Bill Clinton. Law enforcement in Colorado
subpoenaed a bookstore customers' purchases during a drug
investigation. A Colorado Supreme Court blocked the subpoena.
Kettler, in St. Albans, said her first thoughts are for her
customers' privacy. A woman seeking a book on ovarian cancer
[[Page S2707]]
should not have to worry her illness might be disclosed by
the shopkeeper, Kettler said.
"I guess I'm going to stop keeping such meticulous
records," she said.
______
