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.
