President Bush speaks about the Patriot Act in Baltimore, Md., Wednesday, July 20, 2005. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Posted on 07/21/2005 7:36:07 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The House voted Thursday to extend the USA Patriot Act, the nation's main anti-terrorism tool, just hours after televisions in the Capitol beamed images of a new attack in London.
As similar legislation worked its way through the Senate, House Republicans generally cast the law as a valuable asset in the war on terror. Most Democrats echoed that support but said they were concerned the law could allow citizens' civil liberties to be infringed.
After more than nine hours of debate, the House approved the measure 257-171. Forty-three Democrats joined 214 Republicans in voting to renew key provisions of the Patriot Act that were set to expire at the end of the year.
The bulk of the back-and-forth centered on language making permanent 14 of 16 provisions that had four-year sunset provisions under the original law, which Congress passed overwhelmingly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The bill also includes 10-year extensions to the two other provisions set to expire on Dec. 31, one allowing roving wiretaps and another allowing searches of library and medical records.
"While the Patriot Act and other anti-terrorism initiatives have helped avert additional attacks on our soil, the threat has not receded," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee, said that while "I support the majority of the 166 provisions of the Patriot Act," the extensions could lessen accountability. "Ten years is not a sunset; 10 years is semi-permanent," he said.
President Bush hailed the vote.
"The Patriot Act is a key part of our efforts to combat terrorism and protect the American people, and the Congress needs to send me a bill soon that renews the act without weakening our ability to fight terror," Bush said in a statement released by the White House.
As the House debated the legislation, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved its own extension of the bill, though it included only four-year extensions for the roving wiretap and records search provisions.
A competing bill also has been approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee, which would give the FBI expanded powers to subpoena records without the approval of a judge or grand jury. That ensured further Senate talks on the terrorism-fighting measure. The House legislation will also have to be reconciled with whatever emerges from the Senate.
The House debate included frequent references to the attacks earlier in the day, two weeks after larger London blasts that killed 56, including four suicide bombers.
The roving wiretap provision, Section 206, allows investigators to obtain warrants to intercept a suspect's phone conversations or Internet traffic without limiting it to a specific phone or identifying the suspect. The records provision, Section 215, authorizes federal officials to obtain "tangible items" such as business, library and medical records.
Advocates argued that such powers already exist in criminal investigations so they should be expressly continued for terrorism investigations. They also cited safeguards in the bill, such as a requirement that a judge approve the records search.
One amendment, passed by a 402-26 vote, requires the FBI director to personally approve any request for library or bookstore records. Another successful amendment sets a 20-year jail term for an attack against a rail or mass-transit vehicle; a 30-year sentence if the vehicle carries nuclear material; and life imprisonment — with the possibility of the death penalty — if anyone is killed in such an attack.
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., a former FBI agent, recalled using such tools in gang and child molestation investigations.
"All we do in the Patriot Act is say, `Look, if we can go after child molesters sitting in the library and bombers who we need to sneak-and-peek on a warrant, we ought to be able to go after terrorists,'" he said.
Critics heralded the bulk of the existing law, but said the sunsets were wisely inserted amid the inflamed passions following the Sept. 11 attacks, and should be retained to assess the long-term impact of the law.
"Periodically revisiting the Patriot Act is a good thing," said Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass. "The Patriot Act was an effort to answer the most difficult question a democracy faces: How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel safe?"
Democrats were incensed after Republican leaders blocked consideration of an amendment that would have blocked the library searches. The House approved identical language last month in a test vote.
"If you don't like it, come up and speak against it," said Rep. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who sponsored the amendment. "But it has passed once and it would likely pass again."
___
The House bill number is H.R. 3199.
___
On the Net:
For bill text: http://thomas.loc.gov
President Bush speaks about the Patriot Act in Baltimore, Md., Wednesday, July 20, 2005. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
:-/?
Conyers obviously does not have a clue about the war on terrorism if he thinks 10 years is to long.
The silly thing is all the fuss and muss the usual suspects made over the library searches. This should show us just how serious they are.
Well at least the library searches have a timeframe of 10 years. Better than 2-5 years to assess their value. I was going to reject the bill if searches were ludicrously prohibited of libraries. Guess where all the terrorists would go at that point to gather.
I realize some dislike the Patriot Act. I have no problem with it, so I am heartened by this. Now it's the Senate's term to stop playing games with Guatanomo and step up.
I understand how some people believe that one day we may need to know how to made bombs, etc. for a militia if we are invaded by the Chinese or some other situation calling defense of our country occurs.
And they may understandably not want to be scrutinized by the FBI while they are checking up on how to make a bomb in a library.
That said, in the end I think the terrorist situation we are facing now is very grave for the very survival of our country. To catch terrorists before they act is imperative.
I don't think enough people have enough appreciation for how badly they can hurt us, and that they have the potential to completely destroy our country as a functioning entity.
every small victory is a step closer
I agree with the failure to understand the threat.
My outlook is that the Clinton administration abused its powers without the Patriot Act. He wasn't punished for this abuse. The day a Liberal is convicted of overstepping their constitutional authorities, then I'll consider the Libertarian argument. Until then the fear the Act, which does require oversight from a Judge or other authority, will result in abuse of power doesn't hold any weight with me.
A Republican would not dare violate the act intentionally, even unintentionally, because they'd be impeached. Likely without the Act they couldn't perform even the most most minor of necessary investigations to stop terrorists because Libs and Judges would block them out of spite.
Meanwhile a Liberal Democrat will be excused any violation, Act or not.
The Patriot Act is needed to pursue terrorists because the ability of a Republican administration to pursue the WOT would be obstructed entirely. Just look at what they've attempted with Guantanomo.
The other argument is that the loss of privacy is intolerable. Well, again, the Government can spy on me right now Patriot Act or no. Law abiding officials will at least go to a Judge with cause. Officials not interested in law won't bother with a court order any way.
I guess my point here is that I recognize the idea of 'privacy' is just not realistic in an age with our technology. My neighbor could get hold of all my records, it's ludicrous to believe the Government couldn't or that absence of Patriot Act would prevent someone if they wanted to.
The Patriot Act is needed to prevent the leftist democrats from blocking and thwarting Bushs policies in regard to the WOT. Look how many voted against it. That says a lot about whos side they are on. Almost 5 years without an attack on our soil just doesn't sit well with democrats. It makes Bush look good and they can't have that continue.
The Patriot Act is needed to prevent the leftist democrats from blocking and thwarting Bushs policies in regard to the WOT. Look how many voted against it. That says a lot about whos side they are on. Almost 5 years without an attack on our soil just doesn't sit well with democrats. It makes Bush look good and they can't have that continue.
Anyone know where to find the breakdown of the vote?
So, perhaps some other laws should be repealed as unnecessary.
The Patriot Act is needed to prevent the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy from blocking and thwarting President Rodham's policies.
The Patriot Act is stupid and unneeded. If we are not going to arm airline pilots, than I can't possibly see why the Patriot Act exists. It seems to be another way to for government to say it is doing something when it is doing nothing but wasting money, time and energy.
I D I O T
or something like it.
Close to my thinking. More exactly. The public will never know about all their abuses of privacy because the MSM will never let on if they get a hint there is abuse going on.
The Dems admit that oversight has not shown the slightest abuse of the Patriot Act by the Bush administration.
Until you get an exact count, I'll just relate from memory what I saw on the voting.
14 Republicans voted against.
150 or so Democrats voted against.
This is good news.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.