"a drop of water to someone stranded in the desert will seem like a royal feast."

Along those lines, I finally got "a drop of water" (if you can even call it as much as that) from DiFi's DC office today.

I just called in (for about, I'd say, the 8th time in the past two weeks) and asked the phone-answerer why my Senator had voted "yes," in the Intelligence Committeee, for the FISA bill, which includes retroactive immunity to telecoms which violated federal law by spying on Americans without a warrant.

I was told by the phone answerer that (and here's the miniscule drop of water) the Senator has "deep reservations" (!) about the bill, and understands that her constituents also have reservations (!) about the bill, and that the constituent concerns appear to be in regards to the issue of retroactive immunity for the telecoms.

I asked why my Senator voted "yes" on a bill that she has "deep reservations" about, and was told that she voted solely to move it out of the Intelligence Committee, but that the Judiciary Committee (on which my Senator also sits) will be the primary battleground for this bill, and that the Senator hopes that her reservations will be addressed there, in Judiciary Committee deliberations.

I asked if the phone-answerer, or anyone in the office, could tell me what the specific nature of my Senator's reservations are. I was told (for the zillionth time in the past two weeks, good-bye water drop) that my Senator has not yet issued a statement declaring her official position on this topic, but that she is very sensitive to the constituent contact she has been receiving, and understands that many of her constituents are concerned about the retroactive immunity provision, and that he, the phone-answerer, would certainly pass along any additional messages I may wish to communicate.

I pointed out, to the phone answerer, that Senators Dodd and Obama and Biden had all issued unequivocable declarations of the intent to fillibuster any FISA bill which includes retroactive immunity for the telecoms, and that President Bush had declared his insistence that any FISA bill include retroactive immunity, and that I certainly hope that my Democratic Senator from California stands with Senators Dodd, Obama and Biden on this issue, rather than standing with President Bush. The phone-answerer assured me that Senator Feinstein is well aware of the stances taken by her fellow Senators (Dodd, Obama, and Biden), and that he would certainly pass along my message.

End of call.

Patrick Meighan

Culver City, CA

Up 'til today, the standard, pro-forma response had been that my Senator hadn't decided how she's gonna vote, and will release a statement later, when she decides.

Now, however, that she has voted (at least in the Intelligence Committee), that answer has less legitimacy (if it ever had any). Thus, I called again this afternoon, as a constituent, and asked for an explanation for my elected representative's already-cast Intelligence Committee vote. Guess what: they're sticking to the old cop-out. My Senator will release a statement "soon" explaining her position on this bill. 'Til then, I can go rot. Kee-ryst, this is aggrevating!

At the very least, though, I've wrung this concession from two separate phone answerers in DiFi's D.C. office: they're received absolutely *no* constituent contact explicitly urging retroactive immunity for the telecoms. None. Every piece of constituent contact DiFi's office has received on this issue has been in the negative. The phone answerer tried to wriggle on this, somewhat, by saying that they have received some constituent support for the FISA bill (and that, the phone answerer claims, could be construed as inherent constituent support for retroactive immunity, since the FISA bill contains such a provision). Blech.

It's so frustrating, smashing myself against the wall of DiFi's non-responsiveness, but I'll keep on at it, right up 'til the end.

Patrick Meighan

Culver City, CA