The short-term extension gives lawmakers a chance to review the measures that aim to weigh more oversight of federal agents enforcing the anti terrorism law.  Critics from both the right and left say are unconstitutional infringements on personal liberties.

The provisions grant authority for roving wiretaps on terror suspects that move from phone to phone or other electronic devices. Another provision allows for the examination of library records, bookstore records and other business records of terror suspects. The third provision permits surveillance of "lone wolf" suspects, those who act alone or who may not be tied or involved with recognized terror organizations.

The vote came one day after the House passed legislation extending the Patriot Act until Dec. 2011.

Prior to the vote, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee took to the floor to argue that the legislation remains essential for national security. 

Chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Diane Feinstein,  D-Calif., quoted Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano in arguing that that threat level against the nation is at its “most heightened state in more than 10 years.”

Congress hastily passed the Patriot Act in October 2001, a month and a half after the 9/11 attacks, to give authorities expanded powers to investigate suspected terrorists.

Parts of the law were made permanent in 2006, but lawmakers put an expiration date on the three sections now being discussed because of their controversial nature. Some lawmakers in both parties have argued the snooping powers violate privacy rights and the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The disagreement arises over competing issues on how long to extend the anti-terrorism surveillance tools were scheduled to expire at the end of February and how much oversight to include.

The vote came amid a bitter battle over how long to extend the intrusive powers at the core of the signature legislative response to the terror strikes nearly 10 years ago, and with what safeguards.

While the White House backs extending those powers through 2013, the law has drawn fire from an unusual coalition of liberal Democrats and Republicans tied to the archconservative “Tea Party” movement who say it goes too far.

“I might not have the votes to stop this bill, but we should at least discuss this in public as adults. We should have the opportunity to explain why the Constitution is being violated,” said firebrand Republican Senator Rand Paul.

“We should have the opportunity to explain why the Constitution is being violated. We should talk about how we do not have to give up who we are in order to fight terrorism. It is not acceptable to willfully ignore the most basic provisions of our Constitution — in this case — the Fourth and First Amendments — in the name of ‘security.’” said Paul, echoing complaints from Democratic foes of the measure as well as the American Civil Liberties Union.

But Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein told lawmakers that “the threat against the United States from terrorism, cyber attacks, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and others is at a very high level.”

“Intelligence is our best tool in keeping American secure,” added Feinstein, a Democrat who has proposed extending the provisions through 2013.

But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, disagreed:  “I do not support permanent extension of these surveillance authorities,” he said. “I support strengthening oversight while providing the intelligence community the certainty it needs to protect national security.”

Leahy also called for action well before December, warning that “we should not extend this debate into an election year and risk that some will play politics with our national security.”

President Barack Obama has pressed lawmakers for an extension through December 2013, while leading Senate Republicans have called for making the powers permanent but signaled they could back Feinstein's measure.