Senate Advances Patriot Act Renewal

By LAURIE KELLMAN

WASHINGTON – The Senate on Wednesday agreed to add to the Patriot Act new curbs on the government’s power to pry into private records, moving President Bush’s antiterror law a step closer to renewal before key provisions expire next week.

But even as it progressed on a 95-4 vote, some Democrats complained that the limits would be virtually meaningless in practice and sought to add even stronger privacy protections.

Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., refused to allow more tinkering, pointing out that renewal of the 2001 law is already months overdue.

The measure that passed Wednesday restricts somwhat the government’s ability to access records in terrorism investigations by allowing court challenges to some demands.

That’s not enough for Sens. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who were invoking several procedural maneuvers to slow down the legislation’s progress. They and two others, Sens. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, voted ‘no’ on the bill. Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, did not vote.

“No one has the right to turn this body into a rubber stamp,” said Feingold, the leading opponent of the law in Congress. “The White House played hardball and the decision was made by some to capitulate.”

The procedural wrangling in the Senate prompted House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., to pull the measure off his chamber’s schedule for the day. The House was not expected to vote on the matter until next week.

Still, the law appeared headed for passage and Bush’s desk before 16 major provisions were set to expire on March 10. The Senate this week is expected to pass the second measure in the two-bill package. Both have to be approved by the House before the package is sent to the White House for Bush’s signature.

Unable to reach accord for months, Congress has twice extended the expiration date. The 2001 anti-terrorism law was originally to have expired Dec. 31.

The war on terror can’t wait for more debate, Republicans said.

“Civil liberties do not mean much when you are dead,” Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., told the Senate.

The Senate voted 69-30 Tuesday – 60 votes were needed – to limit debate and bring the legislation to a final vote. The Senate is expected to pass the measure as early as Wednesday, barring Democratic procedural maneuvers. The House then is expected to approve it and send the bill to Bush’s desk next week.

Despite the bill’s progress, deep misgivings remain even among its chief supporters.

One of them, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., was in the odd position Tuesday of urging his colleagues to pass a bill so flawed that he planned new legislation and hearings to fix it.

“The issue is not concluded,” said Specter, R-Pa. He said he plans more legislation and hearings on restoring House-rejected curbs on government power.

His bill would make the government satisfy a higher threshold for warrantless wiretaps and would set a four-year expiration date for the use of National Security Letters in terrorism investigations.

However appetizing to Specter’s colleagues in the Senate, the new bill contains items House Republicans flatly rejected during talks last year.

Sensenbrenner has insisted that once the House approves the renewal and sends it to Bush, his chamber is done with the issue for the year.

That will be none too soon for some lawmakers. The standoff pushed renewing the law into this midterm election year. Senate leaders were forced to find a procedural way of getting the bill to a vote without losing the support of Sensenbrenner, the Bush administration and libertarian-leaning lawmakers – all before March 10.

The solution is a convoluted procedural dance that illustrates the razor-thin zone of agreement when it comes to Bush’s terror-fighting law.

Congress will extend the Patriot Act by passing two pieces of legislation. The first is the same accord passed last year by the House and filibustered in the Senate by members who said it contained too few privacy protections. The second is, in effect, an amendment to the first that adds enough privacy protections to win over those same libertarian-leaning Republicans.