Dear Congress
December 5th, 2007 by Brian
This is just an initial placeholder. There has been some talk on reddit about how congress doesn’t listen when we write them. So here is an initial place to put an archive of what we write to congress, and what congress writes back.
Just place letters to congress and responses (or links) in the comment section, and I’ll organize them as they come in.
December 5th, 2007 13:59
Thank you for contacting me. I appreciate hearing from you.
As you know, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) placed a hold on the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S.2248) due to his objection to a provision in the bill granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that provided personal data of Americans to the Bush Administration following the September 11th terrorist attacks. I respect Senator Dodd’s right to place a hold on this bill in accordance with the rules of the U.S. Senate.
Nevertheless, the continuing threat of terrorism compels Congress to create a surveillance program that allows our homeland security personnel to vigorously combat this threat while preserving our long-standing commitment to the rule of law. I intend to work with Senator Dodd and others to craft a bill which effectively strikes this balance.
Again, thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
Ken Salazar
United States Senator
That’s the response from Ken Salazar of Colorado. I don’t have the original letter I sent, though. So you might be able to use this, or not, but I decided to respond to your call.
December 5th, 2007 14:03
Erin,
Thanks for the comment. I assume the gist of your letter was voicing opposition to retroactive immunity?
December 18th, 2007 21:31
From John, here is another standard reply from congress:
From Representative Christopher P. Carney
December 20th, 2007 00:13
I sent emails to both of my senators and received replies from both. I also called both offices and spoke to ladies who assured me that they would pass my comments about retroactive immunity (unconstitutional) and the FISA bill in general on to the respective party. I eagerly await the paper spam that is sure to follow. These people love to mail their newsletters to anyone who writes. I guess to them, it justifies their existence and helps them earn that nice pension they’ll get when we vote them out of office.
This is the response that I received from John Cornyn:
Dear Mr. XXXXXX:
Thank you for contacting me about your concerns regarding amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) currently being considered by the Senate. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this important matter.
Gathering communications intelligence is one of America’s first lines of defense in the war on terror. In August 2007, Congress passed the Protect America Act, modernizing FISA to give intelligence professionals the tools they urgently need to gather information, while still protecting the civil liberties of Americans. Subsequently, the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S. 2248) was introduced on October 26, 2007, to continue this vital work. S. 2248 creates an expanded role for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, empowering the court with more scrutiny over surveillance procedures and acquisitions. Additionally, this legislation strengthens congressional oversight by increasing reporting requirements and requiring audits by the Inspector General.
Furthermore, S. 2248 would alter FISA to provide civil immunity for communications carriers that have previously assisted the federal government with surveillance, as well as creates civil immunity for future assistance. Communications carriers currently face billions of dollars in lawsuits for their role in assisting the National Security Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, instituted after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. This program works to thwart future attacks by intercepting communications between suspected terrorist organizations overseas and potential operatives within the United States. Though acting without a court warrant, the program was conducted under the President’s broad authority to protect and defend the nation. Communications carriers have provided the federal government invaluable assistance, relying on official assurances of legality. While the process of litigation is integral to our system of laws, I believe it is unfair to punish the communications companies for patriotic compliance with the government’s war on terror.
In providing civil immunity for communications carriers that assist government surveillance we are ensuring the effective collection of intelligence. Without the cooperation of communications carriers, the United States’ intelligence efforts would be severely debilitated. Providing immunity guarantees the much needed cooperation of carriers as well as their ability to rely on official assurances of necessity and legality. Additionally, it is important to note that S. 2248 does not grant immunity to government officials.
As a member of the Senate Armed Services and Judiciary Committees, I am committed to ensuring that we appropriately balance our national security needs and the protection of our civil liberties. Changes provided by S. 2248, including the immunity provision for communications carriers, strike this much needed balance. I appreciate the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United States Senate, and am thankful for your comments as I review proposed changes to FISA.
Sincerely,
JOHN CORNYN
United States Senator
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
http://www.cornyn.senate.gov
Please sign up for my monthly newsletter at http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/newsletter.
As you can see, he actually addressed the issue of immunity that I raised though not in a way that is satisfactory to me. Of course he also plugged his newsletter which I already receive since I write these guys a couple times a year trying to get them to change their minds. I guess you have to have one before you can change it.
My other senator didn’t even bother to address the issue of immunity for telecoms in her response, but then I didn’t expect her to. She always gives a canned reply. I have contacted her on several issues and each time all I get is this kind of non-answer (from Kay Bailey Hutchison):
Dear Mr. XXXXXX:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 provides the framework for the use of electronic surveillance in the context of foreign intelligence gathering and tries to balance national security issues with personal privacy rights. Over time, FISA has been amended to expand intelligence gathering to physical searches and access to certain business records. Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act made significant changes to some FISA provisions in order to aid in the capture of suspected terrorists. Since the bill’s enactment, several pieces of legislation have been introduced with the intention of amending, condensing, or expanding upon the PATRIOT Act.
On August 3, 2007, the Senate passed S. 1927, The Protect America Act of 2007. This bill was signed into law by the President on August 5, 2007. The Protect America Act updates FISA to close an intelligence gap in the surveillance of suspected terrorists and to address limitations on surveillance created by a 2007 federal intelligence court ruling. Please know that I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress to safeguard the security of our nation while upholding our personal privacy rights and civil liberties.
I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.
Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison
Sorry for the long-winded reply.
BC