|
GOP seeks quick passage of new Patriot Act
(AP)
Updated: 2005-12-09 19:37
Congressional Republican leaders will press for passage
next week of a new Patriot Act to combat terrorism, but a Senate filibuster
looms on a measure that liberal and conservative critics alike say is a threat
to individual liberties.
U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales tells
reporters at the Justice Department that he 'applauds the House and Senate
conferees for coming together to produce a comprehensive USA Patriot Act
reauthorization bill,' in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 8, 2005.
[AP] |
"Just as the Senate did four years ago, we should unite in a bipartisan way
to support the Patriot Act, to stand up for freedom and against terror," Senate
Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Thursday as GOP negotiators from the
House and Senate sealed their White House-backed compromise.
Rep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, issued a
statement saying the measure would aid "in the detection, disruption and
dismantling of terrorist cells before they strike."
Key provisions cover the ability of law enforcement officials to gain access
to a wealth of personal data, including library and medical records, as part of
investigations into suspected terrorist activity.
The measure provides a four-year extension of the government's ability to
conduct roving wiretaps 錕斤拷 which may involve multiple phones 錕斤拷 and to seek access
to many of the personal records covered by the bill.
Also extended for four years is the power to wiretap "lone wolf" terrorists
who may operate on their own, without control from a foreign agent or power. An
earlier, pre-Thanksgiving stab at compromise had called for seven-year
extensions of these provisions.
Yet another provision, which applies to all criminal cases, gives the
government 30 days to provide notice that it has carried out a search warrant.
Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, described the final product as "not a perfect bill but a
good one," and credited the White House with helping bring the House and Senate
negotiators together.
But lawmakers in both parties attacked the measure. "This battle is not
over," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., who complained that the bill lacked
"adequate safeguards to protect our constitutional freedoms." He vowed to do
everything he could, including a filibuster, to stop the bill from passing.
It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. While Republican officials seemed
confident the bill would pass the House, it was not clear Thursday night that it
could command the level of support needed for Senate passage as well.
Feingold was the only senator to vote against the original Patriot Act, which
passed in the days following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Now, four years later, lawmakers in both parties appear more willing to
express their opposition, on grounds that the bill fails to protect privacy
rights. Three Republican and three Democratic senators issued a statement
calling for revisions to give law enforcement "the tools they need while
providing safeguards to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans." The
six included Republicans John Sununu of New Hampshire, Larry Craig of Idaho and
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, plus Feingold and fellow Democrats Richard Durbin of
Illinois and Ken Salazar of Colorado.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid intends to oppose the bill, based on what
he has reviewed to date, according spokesman Jim Manley. He said the Nevada
lawmaker needs to consult with fellow Democrats before deciding whether to join
a filibuster.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., who is the senior
Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, voiced opposition to the bill, but
also declined to say whether he would join Feingold.
White House officials signaled their satisfaction, and Specter has credited
Vice President Dick Cheney with intervening this week to help bring the House
and Senate together.
Additionally, some Republicans said that, purely in political terms, they
relished the prospect of Senate Democrats mounting a last-ditch attempt to block
the measure.
The agreement capped weeks of fits and starts, and came after a day of
confusion and mixed signals.
Specter held a late-morning news conference Thursday to hail the compromise
and confidently predicted that the five other Senate Republican negotiators
involved in talks with the House would back the deal.
But within a few hours, a House Judiciary Committee aide circulated an e-mail
notice citing a "misrepresentation by Sen. Specter's office" and saying the
legislation was unlikely to be completed this week.
Several Republican officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said GOP
Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Jon Kyl of Arizona, whose signatures were
needed on official papers, had not yet given their approval.
By late afternoon, both men swung behind the bill. One official said that
before giving their approval, the two senators wanted to know why the measure
contained four-year extensions instead of the seven-year renewals in an earlier
compromise 錕斤拷 a change that Specter had been seeking in hopes of winning Leahy's
support.
These officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not
authorized to provide details of private conversations.
Under the measure announced during the day, law enforcement officials could
continue to obtain secret access to a variety of personal records from
businesses, hospitals and other organizations, including libraries.
Access is obtained by order of a secret court established under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. The recipient of the request for information is
subject to a gag order that cannot be challenged in court, according to
officials.
Specter said the draft legislation would, for the first time, require the law
enforcement agent to present a judge with a "statement of fact" showing the
request was relevant to an anti-terrorism investigation. Critics said other
provisions rendered the requirement virtually meaningless.
On a second issue, relating to a National Security Letter, government
investigators could continue to gain access to a more limited range of personal
records without a court order of any kind.
The recipient of the letter 錕斤拷 a bank, for example 錕斤拷 would have the explicit
right to challenge the government's request in court, as well as the right to
consult a lawyer without having to notify the FBI it had done
so.
|
