From the Los Angeles Times
New Life for Patriot Act Is No Bush Win
The Senate's six-month extension effectively kills a
deal to make
key provisions permanent.
By Richard B. Schmitt and Mary Curtius
Times Staff Writers
December 22, 2005
WASHINGTON — In a major
setback for the White House on a top domestic priority, the Senate on
Wednesday passed a six-month extension of the Patriot Act, due to
expire Dec. 31, even though President Bush had demanded that most of
the law become permanent.
The move effectively killed a House-Senate compromise that would have
made permanent 14 of the 16 provisions of the statute, which gives law
enforcement officials sweeping power to track and prosecute suspected
terrorists. The House adopted the compromise last week.
But
senators from both parties balked, saying the compromise legislation
failed to include enough safeguards of civil liberties and privacy.
They began filibustering the measure Friday and sustained the
filibuster through the end of a tumultuous session Wednesday night,
withstanding blistering public attacks by Bush, Atty. Gen. Alberto R.
Gonzales and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who
said that allowing the provisions to expire would put the
American people at risk.
Ultimately, the Senate agreed to the six-month extension without
opposition.
"We had a pretty broad coalition and it held together," said Sen. John
Sununu of New Hampshire, one of four Republicans who joined 43
Democrats on Friday to launch the filibuster.
The Senate
Democratic minority seemed delighted by the rare and hard-fought
victory over a president who since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has
built his presidency around the pursuit of terrorists.
"The
White House … couldn't break the filibuster, couldn't break the
bipartisan group," said Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), who led the
fight against the House-Senate compromise legislation.
"It was
only the president, the White House and Atty. Gen. Gonzales who wanted
to play that game of chicken — and they lost that game," Feingold said.
The administration had made it clear, he added, that "it was their way
or the highway, but they did not prevail."
Frist, who said
Tuesday that he would not agree to a temporary extension, said
Wednesday night that he had changed his mind when faced by what he
described as a decision by Democrats "to kill the Patriot Act." He said
he decided that he wasn't "going to let the Patriot Act die."
In a written statement late Wednesday, Bush said that he appreciated
the Senate's work "to keep the existing Patriot Act in law" but that
"the work of Congress on the Patriot Act is not finished."
"The act will expire next summer, but the terrorist threat to America
will not expire on that schedule," Bush said.
If the House convenes today and agrees to the extension, as expected,
and if Bush signs it, as expected, House and Senate negotiators will
have six months to come up with a proposal.
"This is the way
legislation used to be done when I first came here," said Sen. Patrick
J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee,
who worked with the committee's chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.),
to negotiate the temporary extension. "There were many good things in
this conference report, but not enough. Now we have six months to get
it right."
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), another Judiciary
Committee member, said the turning point came Wednesday morning when a
bipartisan majority of senators — 52 — signed a letter urging Frist to
support a three-month extension of the expiring measures. The letter
touched off intense negotiations and high-level lobbying as the White
House sought to persuade Republican senators to support the compromise
legislation.
The administration found stiff resistance among
the senators, some of whom resented the haste with which the Patriot
Act was pushed through Congress by the Republican leadership within
weeks of the Sept. 11 attacks.
"We should just extend it and
if the White House objects, let them veto it," Sen. Trent Lott
(R-Miss.) told reporters Wednesday afternoon. Lott did not sign the
letter but indicated that he had little patience with the Senate
leadership's insistence that it would never agree to a temporary
extension.
"You always say what you're not gonna do till you
lose, and then you do it," Lott said. "Nobody will remember tomorrow
that we said we weren't going to extend it."
Earlier Wednesday,
Bush accused senators of engaging in an "inexcusable" obstruction of a
law he said the nation could not afford to be without. "The expiration
of this law will endanger America and will leave us in a weaker
position in the fight against brutal killers," he told reporters in
Washington.
But the senators who said the House-Senate
compromise did not offer enough safeguards of civil liberties insisted
that there was an alternative.
"We have a bipartisan majority
of the Senate that says the choice is not one particular version or no
Patriot Act, but rather to continue the present Patriot Act," Schumer
said Wednesday afternoon.
The Patriot Act was meant to tear
down the wall between law enforcement and intelligence agencies that
some said hampered detection of the Sept. 11 plot and to give law
enforcement new tools to find and prosecute terrorists in the United
States. But it has made civil libertarians uneasy because it gives the
federal government great leeway to wiretap and search the homes,
offices and business records of U.S. citizens with limited judicial
review.
The Bush administration says the law is a vital tool in
its anti-terrorism arsenal and has pushed to make all its provisions —
some of which were written to expire at the end of this year —
permanent. After the House and the Senate passed different
reauthorization proposals, negotiators came up with the compromise that
they said struck a balance between the Senate's measure, which required
more judicial review, and the House version, which required less. The
White House supported the compromise.
But on Friday, hours
before the Senate was to consider the compromise, the New York Times
reported that in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush had
authorized wiretapping hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Americans
without seeking warrants from a secret court that deals with
terrorism-related cases. Several senators said the revelation spurred
them to vote against the compromise.
Bush has acknowledged
authorizing the wiretaps and has said he has the authority to do so
under the Constitution and a 2001 congressional resolution approving
the use of force against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the former regime in
Afghanistan.
On the surface, the differences between the HouseSenate compromise and
what dissident senators want do not seem huge.
For instance, the Senate version of the so-called library provision,
which grants the government broad powers to obtain business records in
terrorism investigations, would prevent government fishing expeditions
by giving some discretion to a neutral judge to decide whether the
requests for records are reasonable.
Opponents of the Senate
version, including the Bush administration, said such changes would
unnecessarily and dangerously tie the hands of law enforcement. The
House version includes somewhat less judicial oversight.
Some outside experts said they were perplexed by the increasingly
vituperative debate over changes they considered subtle.
"It is nonsensical," said Michael Greenberger, a former Justice
Department official who now heads the Center for Health and Homeland
Security at the University of Maryland. "I think they are playing
chicken with this thing."
After the agreement on the six-month
extension was announced, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she was
disappointed that the decision to extend the Patriot Act resulted in a
delay in passage of a measure she sponsored to combat methamphetamine
production.
Her proposal, which was included in the
compromise legislation, would have restricted the sale of products
containing ingredients used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.
"I am very disappointed combating the scourge of methamphetamine was
not included in the compromise on the Patriot Act," she said.
"This is a critical bill that has strong support in the Senate. The
problem is that it got caught up in very difficult maneuvers at the end
of the session. I will continue the fight to get this important
legislation passed and am pleased that the Senate leadership has agreed
to a vote in January or early February."
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times