Pact to extend Patriot Act is set; some in both parties vow a fight
Liberties at issue in bill's renewal
WASHINGTON -- Republican legislators in the House and Senate reached a tentative agreement yesterday to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act before the surveillance law expires at the end of this month. But a small group of senators from both parties pledged to keep fighting the proposal, to protect civil liberties.
''All factors considered it's reasonably good, not perfect, but it's acceptable," said the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania. Specter was announcing the agreement to extend the law, which was enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Leaders in both chambers said they would schedule a final vote on the bill next week.
Under the agreement, most parts of the Patriot Act would be made permanent, while several of its more disputed provisions would expire at the end of 2009 if members of Congress decided not to authorize them again.
The Bush administration and House Republicans had been pushing to extend those powers for 10 years, but settled for the Senate's preference for shorter terms.
''We are very pleased that the Senate and the House have reached a compromise on reauthorization of the Patriot Act," said the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan.
''The Patriot Act is critical to winning the war on terrorism," he said. ''It helps investigators and authorities dismantle terrorist cells, disrupt terrorist plots, and capture terrorists before they strike."
Surveillance powers that received a four-year extension include these:
Some critics of the Patriot Act were unmollified by the compromise, arguing that it still goes too far in giving sweeping powers to federal investigators and lacks sufficient privacy protections. They sought to require investigators to show more evidence before obtaining sweeping powers to conduct searches, and more oversight from judges and Congress.
''I will do everything I can, including a filibuster, to stop this Patriot Act conference report, which does not include adequate safeguards to protect our constitutional freedoms," said Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, who was the only senator to vote against the original version of the Patriot Act. ''This battle is not over."
A filibuster is a procedural tactic that can prevent the Senate from voting on a bill if at least 41 of the 100 senators refuse to ''end debate." It was unclear yesterday whether critics of the bill would find enough allies in the Senate to block a vote, though some expressed optimism.
Last July, when the Senate first considered extending the Patriot Act, it opted to include many more safeguards of civil liberties than in yesterday's House-Senate compromise.
Feingold joined five other senators who issued a joint statement rejecting the compromise deal. The others were Republicans Larry Craig of Idaho, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and John Sununu of New Hampshire, and Democrats Richard Durbin of Illinois and Ken Salazar of Colorado.
''By insisting that modest protections for civil liberties be excluded from the conference report, [supporters of the new deal] bear responsibility for any possibility that some provisions of the Patriot Act could expire this year," the six senators said in a statement.
But Specter said he expected any attempt to mount a filibuster would fail, and the Bush administration and other Republican leaders in Congress seemed confident that the bill would pass.
Specter said the compromise incorporated some of the protections from the Senate bill. For example, it requires the FBI to make public reports on how often it uses its new powers. It also requires the Justice Department's inspector general to audit the use of those powers.
The accord would also tighten judicial oversight over a search power known as a ''sneak and peek" warrant, in which FBI agents secretly search a private home or business. House Republicans had wanted to let the FBI delay the notification of people whose homes or businesses have been searched for up to six months, but the final version sets a limit of 30 days.
But critics of the measure say the new safeguards do not go far enough. Sununu, for example, complained that judges should have more power to review searches of business records when the person being investigated is unaware that his or her records have been viewed.
And Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he opposed a provision restricting the power of a judge to reject ''national security letters" --warrants that the FBI can issue without seeking prior approval of a judge.
Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington office, called the deal a sham.
''We call on all fair-minded lawmakers to . . . stand firm against pressure from the administration to compromise on protections in our Bill of Rights," she said.
Rick Klein of the Globe staff contributed to this report. 
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
