Despite accord on Patriot Act, Congress braces for a floor fight

WASHINGTON — House and Senate negotiators approved an extension of the controversial USA Patriot Act on Thursday, but a bipartisan group of senators pledged to try to block final passage, and at least one lawmaker, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., threatened a filibuster.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the new legislation, which would extend and modestly alter a group of anti-terrorism laws hastily passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was "not a perfect bill, but a good bill."

Parts of the law are set to expire Dec. 31. Many of its provisions were designed to tear down communication walls that had existed between law-enforcement agencies and the nation's intelligence agencies — problems believed to have hampered the discovery of al-Qaida cells in the United States.

The negotiators struck a deal to extend the act's provisions, extending the more controversial provisions for a shorter period of time.

Feingold said he was troubled by three provisions in the act: allowing the government to have access to people's library and business records without proof of a direct connection to terrorism; giving the government broad search authority; and allowing the use of so-called "national security letters" to demand information from businesses and then require them not to reveal that they were releasing information.

The House is expected to vote Tuesday on the compromise. The Senate vote could come as early as Thursday.

Feingold vows delay

Feingold vowed to filibuster the bill — a delaying tactic designed to prevent a vote — if it came to the Senate floor in its current form, but conceded that Republicans might be able to get at least 60 votes to cut off debate.

While there is little debate from Feingold or anyone else in Congress about the need for police agencies to have enhanced information-gathering powers to thwart terrorism, the Patriot Act has been shadowed by unease about whether there were enough safeguards built in to keep authorities from abusing extraordinary power.

As a hedge against government excesses, lawmakers specified that 16 provisions of the original act would expire at the end of 2005 unless renewed, setting the stage for the current debate.

Initially, the strongest push for changes came from an unusual coalition of conservatives and liberals who are civil libertarians and dub themselves Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances.

By October, they had received an unexpected boost from powerful corporate business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, worried about the breadth of government requests for information and a lack of an adequate judicial process to contest demands for records.

Thursday's compromise version makes permanent 14 of the previously temporary provisions. Two of the most controversial provisions would be extended for four more years: the authorization to use roving wiretaps, which allow investigators to monitor conversations as a person moves from place to place, and the authority to secretly collect records, books and other information from businesses and agencies such as libraries and medical centers. That represents a compromise from the 10 years sought in the House version of the legislation.

Under Thursday's agreement, the government's use of these measures also would face some new curbs. For instance, the government would have to explain in more detail why it wanted to conduct a roving wiretap.

"Dismantling" terror

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the compromise measure would assist "in the detection, disruption and dismantling of terrorist cells before they strike."

Six senators Thursday released a statement saying they were "gravely disappointed that the conference committee made so few changes to the Patriot Act," and promising continued opposition. They are Democrats Feingold, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Ken Salazar of Colorado, and Republicans Larry Craig of Idaho, John Sununu of New Hampshire and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and one of those negotiating the compromise, refused to sign the agreement. He said he believed it would fail to protect the rights of "innocent Americans."

Leahy declined to say whether he would support a filibuster. But he warned that if the bill passes without strong bipartisan support, "the American people will lose confidence in the very law-enforcement officials who are there to protect every single one of us."

Also criticizing the bill Thursday were Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who is on the Judiciary Committee.

It was the second time in less than a month that Republicans had claimed agreement on a new Patriot Act. The earlier accord foundered when Leahy balked and Specter sought changes from Sensenbrenner and other House Republicans in hopes of bringing Leahy along.

Specter predicted that a filibuster would not succeed. "I believe before we're finished in the Senate, we'll have significant bipartisan support," he said.

Specter credits Cheney

Specter has credited Vice President Dick Cheney with intervening this week to help bring the House and Senate together.

The government consistently has downplayed fears of abuse. In calling for swift passage of the legislation, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Thursday noted that the Patriot Act has a four-year track record and "people have seen how the Department of Justice has been very responsible in exercising [its] authorities."

But in late October, The Washington Post reported that the FBI had employed the provisions of the act covering expansive records-gathering to annually issue more than 30,000 national security letters seeking information from businesses. The Justice Department disputed the report but has not provided its own tally.

The letters do not require the government to demonstrate a link between the information sought and a suspected terrorist, but merely attest that the records sought are relevant to a terror investigation.

Thursday's compromise version of the Patriot Act did little to allay opponents' concerns.

"It does not require a connection between records secretly sought and a terrorist," said Lisa Graves, senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "We want our federal agents focused on apprehending terrorists and not on innocent Americans."

Leahy and others strongly oppose provisions instructing judges to presume that federal agents should be able to obtain records unless the targeted person can show that the government acted in bad faith. Kennedy called the targeted person's opportunity to challenge a search "arguably worse than nothing."

The compromise also would allow agents to surreptitiously search someone's home or business without telling the person for 30 days. The Senate bill called for a seven-day limit on such "sneak and peek" powers, while the House version allowed 180 days.

Additional information from The Washington Post, The Associated Press and Los Angeles Times