6 May 2003 Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/multidb.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Congressional Record: February 25, 2003 (Senate)] [Page S2703-S2712] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:cr25fe03-160] 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: Wewrite 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. ______