April 22, 2008 

Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman

Hon. Arlen Specter, Ranking Minority Member

Senate Committee on the Judiciary

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Re:  National Security Letters Reform Act, S. 2088

Dear Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter: 

The Judiciary Committee will soon consider issues relating to National Security Letters.  We write to express our support for the National Security Letters Reform Act (S. 2088).  

The PATRIOT Act and Intelligence Authorization Act of FY 2004 drastically expanded the FBI's authority to obtain the business and personal records of Americans by issuing National Security Letters (NSLs).  NSLs, which do not require prior judicial approval, can be used to obtain a wide range of documents based upon vague claims that the information is merely "relevant" to a terrorism investigation.  Once the FBI acquires records with an NSL, it can keep them indefinitely, even when it concludes that the subject of those records is innocent of any crime and is not of intelligence interest. 

Undeniably, the FBI needs prompt access to some of the types of information currently acquired under NSLs, but the current method of self-policing simply does not work.  Reports issued by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Justice in March 2007 and March 2008 documented the drastic expansion of the use of NSLs and their subsequent abuse.  The IG’s reports also show that NSLs are increasingly used to obtain records about Americans, making reform all the more important.  The NSL Reform Act appropriately addresses the problems uncovered by the Inspector General's reports by establishing statutory safeguards and judicial oversight while protecting privacy concerns and bolstering national security interests. 

The bi-partisan NSL Reform Act includes many beneficial reforms.  First, it would limit the reach of NSLs by allowing only less sensitive personal information to be made available under this authority.  Other existing authorities could still be used to obtain the more sensitive information that would no longer be available with an NSL.  It would require the government to determine that records sought with an NSL relate to someone who is connected to terrorism or espionage.  The bill would require the Attorney General to issue minimization procedures for information obtained through NSLs, and to create a system to track their use.  It would also enhance oversight by requiring additional reporting to Congress.  The act would also establish reasonable limits on the “gag” that attaches to an NSL, requiring it to be narrowly tailored and limiting it to 30-days, extendable by a court.  The bill would also tighten the standards for court-issued orders under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act (the “library records” provision) by requiring the government to show that the records sought relate to a suspected terrorist or spy, or to someone directly linked to such a person. 

We believe this bill takes significant steps toward achieving a balance between privacy and national security concerns.  We ask that the Judiciary Committee consider this legislation and report it favorably as soon as is practical.  For more information, please contact ACLU’s Michelle Richardson, This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it , 202/715-0825.  

Sincerely,

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee

American Civil Liberties Union

American Library Association

American Policy Center

Association of Research Libraries

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

Center for American Progress Action Fund

Center for Democracy & Technology

Constitution Project

Concerned Foreign Service Officers

Defending Dissent Foundation

DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Equal Justice Alliance

Federation of American Scientists

Friends Committee on National Legislation

Government Accountability Project

Gun Owners of America

Japanese American Citizens League

League of Women Voters of the United States

Liberty Coalition

The Multiracial Activist

National Security Archive

National Lawyers Guild--National Office

OMB Watch

OpenTheGovernment.org

Unitarian Universalist Service Committee

United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society

U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation

cc:  Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee 

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (6) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 21

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (7) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 22

Government Scientists Seek Protection Under New Whistleblower Bill

The coalition of academic, consumer, environmental, government reform and health groups, which includes the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the Federation of American Scientists, was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS.

"Scientists are less inclined to speak out when they have no protection against retaliation," said Francesca Grifo, director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program.

"We must encourage federal scientists to report when research is censored or manipulated," she said. "Bringing misconduct to light can help protect American families from unsafe consumer products, unsafe drugs, and a polluted environment."

Sometime in the next few weeks the House and Senate are expected to reconcile differences between their versions of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.

In general, both versions strengthen protections for federal workers who report waste, fraud and abuse. But the final bill may not extend those protections to federal scientists who speak out when federal research is distorted or suppressed. The House legislation includes specific protections for scientists, but the Senate version does not.

"Federal government scientists play a crucial role in providing data and scientific analyses to policy makers so they can make the best, most informed decisions about our environment, health and national security," the coalition letter states. "Whether it is toy safety, drug efficacy or air quality, we count on federal agencies to use independent and unbiased science to protect us from harm."

Federal scientists need whistleblower protection now more than ever, Grifo said. Over the last few years private groups such as UCS and news organizations have documented what appears to be a growing incidence of political interference in federal science.

For example, more than a third of the nearly 3,400 federal scientists at nine agencies who responded to UCS questionnaires since 2005 reported they fear retaliation for openly expressing concerns about their agency's work.

An example of the difficulties that government scientists can encounter is happening now at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Service is placing its scientists in an ethical bind by issuing contradictory and confusing directives, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, PEER, an organization of government workers in natural resources agencies, which signed the letter to the Senate.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist Pete Pattavina holds a threatened Eastern indigo snake on the Ft. Stewart Military Base in Georgia (Photo courtesy FWS)

On one hand, the Service is encouraging its scientists to be open and honest, but, on the other hand, they are under orders not to share any agency scientific "documents, assessments and drafts" with outsiders, PEER points out.

On January 28, 2008, the Fish and Wildlife Service adopted a "Scientific Code of Professional Responsibility" which tells agency scientists to:

• "Place reliability and objectivity of scientific activities, reporting and application of scientific results ahead of…allegiance to individuals and organizations"


• "Distinguish between positions that are rooted in scientific information assessments and those rooted in organizational values, and make this distinction in written and oral presentations"


• "Disseminate scientific information to the scientific community and the public to promote understanding and appreciation for fish and wildlife and their habitats."

"It is imperative that all documents, assessments and drafts remain inside the Service, except for discussions as appropriate with recognized federal and state peers," wrote Hall.

"Rather than being clear and unambiguous, the Fish and Wildlife Service has cloaked its ethics guidelines in mixed messages and contradictory side orders," said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch.

Ruch cited a PEER survey of Fish and Wildlife Service scientists showing what Ruch calls "widespread confusion as to what they are allowed to say or write."

"Basic principles of scientific openness and honesty should be government-wide, said Ruch, not confined to the agency that is the source of political embarrassment this quarter."

The letter's 48 signatories include: American Association of Law Libraries, American Association of University Professors, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, American Library Association, Association of American Publishers, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Californians Aware, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Inquiry, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Common Cause, Concerned Foreign Service Officers, Conservation Northwest, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Defenders of Wildlife, Doctors for Open Government, Earthjustice, Endangered Species Coalition, Essential Information, Ethics in Government Group, Federation of American Scientists, Georgians for Open Government, Government Accountability Project, Health Integrity Project, Justice Through Music, Liberty Coalition, Minnesota Coalition on Government Information, National Coalition Against Censorship, National Research Center for Women & Families, National Women's Health Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Jersey Work Environment Council, OMB Watch, OpenGovernment.org, PEN American Center, Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Reproductive Health Technologies Project, The Multiracial Activist, The New Grady Coalition, The Ornithological Council, The Rutherford Institute, The Student Health Integrity Project, U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Western Nebraska Resources Council.

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2008. All rights reserved.

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (6) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 18

WASHINGTON (March 18, 2008) – Four dozen groups spanning the political spectrum today sent a letter to the Senate urging lawmakers to include federal scientists in pending legislation designed to protect whistleblowers. The coalition of academic, consumer, environmental, government reform and health groups -- which includes the Consumer Federation of America, Common Cause, Federation of American Scientists, Liberty Coalition and Rutherford Institute -- was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

"Scientists are less inclined to speak out when they have no protection against retaliation," said Francesca Grifo, director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program. "We must encourage federal scientists to report when research is censored or manipulated. Bringing misconduct to light can help protect American families from unsafe consumer products, unsafe drugs, and a polluted environment." 

Sometime in the next few weeks the House and Senate are expected to reconcile differences between their versions of the whistleblower bill. In general, both versions strengthen protections for federal workers who report waste, fraud and abuse. But the final bill may not extend those protections to federal scientists who speak out when federal research is distorted or suppressed. The House legislation includes specific protections for scientists, but the Senate version does not.

"Federal government scientists play a crucial role in providing data and scientific analyses to policy makers so they can make the best, most informed decisions about our environment, health and national security," the coalition letter states. "Whether it is toy safety, drug efficacy or air quality, we count on federal agencies to use independent and unbiased science to protect us from harm." (For the letter, go to: www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Groups-Urge-Whistleblower-Protections-for-Scientists.pdf.)

Federal scientists need whistleblower protection now more than ever, Grifo said. Over the last few years private groups such as UCS and news organizations have documented what appears to be a growing incidence of political interference in federal science. For example, more than a third of the nearly 3,400 federal scientists at nine agencies who responded to UCS questionnaires since 2005 reported they fear retaliation for openly expressing concerns about their agency's work.

The letter's 48 signatories include: American Association of Law Libraries, American Association of University Professors, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, American Library Association, Association of American Publishers, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Californians Aware, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Inquiry, Center for Science in the Public Interest, Common Cause, Concerned Foreign Service Officers, Conservation Northwest, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Defenders of Wildlife, Doctors for Open Government, Earthjustice, Endangered Species Coalition, Essential Information, Ethics in Government Group, Federation of American Scientists, Georgians for Open Government, Government Accountability Project, Health Integrity Project, Justice Through Music, Liberty Coalition, Minnesota Coalition on Government Information, National Coalition Against Censorship, National Research Center for Women & Families, National Women's Health Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, New Jersey Work Environment Council, OMB Watch, OpenGovernment.org, PEN American Center, Project on Government Oversight, Public Citizen, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Reproductive Health Technologies Project, The Multiracial Activist, The New Grady Coalition, The Ornithological Council, The Rutherford Institute, The Student Health Integrity Project, U.S. Bill of  Rights Foundation, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Western Nebraska Resources Council.

Be first to comment this article | Add as favourites (5) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 17