Congress reaches Patriot Act extension agreement to extend Patriot Act

WASHINGTON -- Key Republicans from the House and Senate reached a White House-backed compromise Thursday to renew the broad powers granted to law enforcement agencies in the days after the 2001 terrorist attacks on American soil.\nGOP leaders pledged to pass the Patriot Act extension for President Bush's signature by the holidays, although bipartisan criticism flared. Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., threatened to filibuster a bill he said lacked adequate safeguards to protect constitutional freedoms.\n"We hammered out what I think is a good bill. Not a perfect bill, but a good bill," said Sen. Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who announced the compromise at a news conference in the Capitol.\nRep. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the measure would assist "in the detection, disruption and dismantling of terrorist cells before they strike."\nImportant parts involve the ability of law enforcement officials to gain access to a wealth of personal data, including library records, as part of investigations into suspected terrorist activity.\nThe measure provides a four-year extension of the government's ability to conduct roving wiretaps -- which may involve multiple phones -- and to seek access to many of the personal records covered by the bill.\nAlso 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.\nWhite House officials signaled their satisfaction, and Specter, R-Pa., has credited Vice President Dick Cheney with intervening this week to help bring the House and Senate together.\nCritics from the left and right said the legislation was a bad deal.\n"Taking away our rights does not make us safer," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., one of several lawmakers in both parties demanding changes in the measure.\nSix critics, three from each party, said in a statement, "We still can, and must, make sure that our laws give law enforcement agents the tools they need while providing safeguards to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans."\nFeingold, one of the six, went further.\n"I will do everything I can, including a filibuster," to block passage, said the Wisconsin Democrat, the lone senator to vote against the original legislation passed in 2001.\nUnder a filibuster, 60 votes are required to block a vote on final passage.\nRepublicans said they intended to proceed without further changes. Some aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that purely in political terms, they relished the prospect of Democrats trying to block an extension of anti-terrorism legislation.\n"We should unite in a bipartisan way to support the Patriot Act, to stand up for freedom, and against terror," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.\nThe agreement capped weeks of fits and starts, and came after a day of confusion and mixed signals.\nSpecter held a late-morning news conference to hail the compromise and confidently predicted that the five other Senate Republican negotiators involved in talks with the House would back the deal.\nBut 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.\nSeveral Republican officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said GOP Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Jon Kyl of Arizona had not yet given their approval.\nSensenbrenner, R-Wis., who had made last-minute concessions reluctantly, refused to answer questions on the subject.\nLeahy held a news conference where he and other Democrats urged Republicans to agree to a three-month extension of the existing law, to give time to consider a longer-term measure. \n"This is too important to the American people to rush through a flawed bill to meet some deadline that we have the ability to extend," he said.\nBy late afternoon, several officials said Kyl and Sessions were supporting the measure. One official said 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, even though the change had failed to persuade Leahy to drop his opposition to the overall bill.\nThese officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to provide details of private conversations.