TOPICS

Democrats risk impasse over PATRIOT Act

By Chris Strohm CongressDaily November 9, 2009

Although not on the front burner, the effort to renew the federal government's domestic surveillance powers has Democrats grappling with a handful of dicey issues, causing some lawmakers to acknowledge that Congress might have to pass a short-term extension to buy more time.

Lawmakers are up against the clock, as key provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and a related intelligence law will expire Dec. 31. No less than six bills have been introduced in the House and Senate to address the expiring provisions, revealing divisions among lawmakers that everyone agrees must be overcome.

While many of the differences do not appear to be huge, Democrats are quietly trying to prevent them from escalating into a public battle within their ranks. They also know that trying to make too many changes to current law will ensure a barrage of Republican attacks heading into an election year that Democrats are weak on national security.

RELATED STORIES

Two bills have come to the forefront, one that was approved by the House Judiciary Committee last week and a measure approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in October.

Both would reauthorize the ability of the government to use roving wiretaps to monitor the communications of suspects and to obtain Section 215 court orders seeking tangible evidence for investigations.

The bills make several changes to current law, especially concerning the ability of the Justice Department to issue national security letters, demands for information without a court order.

But the House Judiciary bill includes stricter standards that the government must meet in order to get approval for a roving wiretap, obtain library or bookstore records and issue national security letters.

The Senate Judiciary bill is opposed by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., Senate Judiciary ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Christopher (Kit) Bond, R-Mo. They argue that making any changes to current law could jeopardize the government's ability to target suspects.

They have introduced a bill that would simply reauthorize the expiring PATRIOT Act provisions rather than make changes.

When asked if Republicans might use procedural tactics to prevent the Judiciary bill from being brought to the Senate floor, Bond said: "We will look at that opportunity. We'll look at all opportunities."

Sessions called the changes in the Judiciary bill a problem. "If this problem is not fixed, it will be a very contentious battle," he said. "We also need some assurances that the bill that comes out of conference is not going to move to the left, and then they try to ram that through."

But Senate Intelligence Commitee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noted that the Judiciary bill was passed out of committee with bipartisan support. "We've got to the end of the year and that's all. And now we've got agreement on one course of action and I think we ought to follow it," said Feinstein, a co-sponsor of the bill.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., said he is trying to move the bill that came out of his committee last week as expeditiously as possible, although he did not know when it will be brought to the House floor.

But it remains to be seen whether Democrats who are vulnerable in next year's election become skittish over GOP attacks that the bill would weaken national security.

"I think they're stumbling into another prime example of showing the American people why they're weak on homeland security," Judiciary ranking member Lamar Smith said of Democrats.

Competing legislation has been introduced by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, and Intelligence Technical and Tactical Subcommittee Chairman C.A. (Dutch) Ruppersberger, D-Md.

Reyes said Democrats are privately trying to negotiate an agreement over their differences. He said they are trying to find a middle ground that will give law enforcement agencies the powers they need while ensuring constitutional protections.

And it also is not yet clear what role, if any, the Blue Dog Coalition will play.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a Blue Dog member who serves on the Judiciary and Intelligence committees, has already entered the fray. He successfully amended the Judiciary bill last week to remove language he believed would have been problematic for the Justice Department.

"I think the Blue Dogs could play a very important role on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization," he said, adding that he has discussed the issue with Blue Dog leaders.

"I think we are going about the process in a thoughtful way and working in consultation with the administration. And that's what we should be doing," he added. "Will it subject us to political attacks? I think the answer is yes. That's going to happen no matter what we do."

Schiff and Ruppersberger said one problem with the House Judiciary bill is that it would allow a provision to expire next month that allows the government to conduct surveillance on a "lone wolf," or somebody who is not knowingly associated with terrorists.

But they acknowledged that Congress might have to pass a short-term extension of current law while lawmakers work out a final agreement.

"That would be a regrettable fallback," Schiff said. "But if discussions break down between the House and Senate or the clock runs out on us, that could happen."

VIEW ALL 10 COMMENTS POST COMMENT

COMMENTS

  • One of the big objections the Party Pachyderms pushed during the last campaign was the concept of Balance of Power in that they feared that the consolidated power of congress and the executive office in the same party (despite several instances when the same could be said for their party over the past 2 decades) would lead to the collapse of our American way of life. That may or may not be true; I will leave each to their own interpretation and opinions on that subject. But there is another aspect to the concept of balance of power that these laws circumvent; and that is the balance between the Department of Justice (and all greater and lower constabularies), the legislative branch, the judiciary branch, and our individual rights. I understand that these laws are merely tools to be used by our men and women in blue, and their application is only as worthy as those who apply them. My personal objections to these laws are the active program of obfuscation towards and lack of oversight by the legislative branch since their implementation, the blatant attempt by the previous administration to remove yet another of the guard dogs - the judiciary, and our lack of protections as American citizens. If judiciary oversight is returned, congress actually checks out what is being done in the name of security and justice, and we can actually appeal abuses of these laws, to include the overwhelming collection of data irrelevant to any investigation, then I will reconsider my own stance. Until then, I wish only to be considered “innocent until proven guilty.” Tip off Posted November 16, 2009 12:01 PM
  • Several times I’ve heard questions like: What has the PATRIOT Act done that was bad? What has it really done to the "average American"? I’ve read accusations of reactionism and paranoia. A law doesn’t have to do bad to be bad. Just because something evil hasn’t been done with it yet, doesn’t mean it won’t end up a catastrophe. Understand that if the PATRIOT Act and FISA was in effect back June of 1972, Nixon would have finished his presidency and no one would have known about a little office complex in DC called the Watergate; all in the name of national security of course. Abuse of power is only a matter of time. I wish not to besmirch our thin blue line, nor do I wish to encumber them unnecessarily; but they are just plain folks like us. And while I firmly believe the vast majority are good intentions and that this tool makes their job easier, I’m firmly convinced that some things have already been done that shouldn’t have and more will come. I must ask “Hmmm” just what it’s done for the nation that outweighs its potential for abuse? Sure I realize there has been some small successes but y’all need to read the GovExec article “Study: Fewer terrorism suspects going to trial”, from 28 Sept 09 to get a better picture of the value this Act has added to our country. Better yet, Google “PATRIOT Act and constitutional amendments”. One response lists the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth eighth, and the fourteenth amendments. Anyone ever wonder why or how? This regular abuse of power is well on its way to being institutionalized and has even become common fodder on TV serials and crime dramas. We may laugh and find them entertaining, but there is a very serious underlying problem that will someday bite us in the derriere; or worse. People worry about the socialization of businesses and medicine, but grant Uncle Sam carte blanche in collecting information on everything thing they say and do. People worry about the FEMA shadow government conspiracy and call naysayers of the PATRIOT Act and FISA un-American. For the unread, Big Brother was an entity created by another benevolent despot regime to educate and reassure the masses, all the while watching and listening and collecting data on “dangerous” activities. Well, as the little girl said, “He’s BAAAACK!” Tip off Posted November 13, 2009 3:48 PM
  • In 12 Nov govexec.com there is an interesting critique of the policy making process of the Legislature. Some commenters correctly note that haste makes waste in policy formulation. The article points out how the policy making process is often produces faulty or failed policies -- like the National Security Personnel System. Then we have the Patriot's Act. Unless it was laying around in the Nazi Party just waiting for the right opportunity, it was the fastest bill ever written and put into law. Of course it would be as another mindless knee jerk reaction of the Nazis in power. After 9/11 Just Saying anything against it during the labeled you as anti-American or terrorist. How does one know if they've been damaged by the government's snooping? It's so secret that you can't tell when the NSA is doing it to you and they certainly aren't going to tell you when they have, what kind of information they've collected, or how they used it against you as an individual or you as a class of Americans or even sold it to someone else. But now that the Democrats are in power, how does it feel to be a Nazi and have the Democrats use the same law to collect info on you? Go ahead, try to sue them and you'll find out what rights you have under the most irrisponsible legislation in the history of the United States of America. You ask how has anyone been hurt? I ask what tangible benefit can be directly attributed to the Act? Wouldn't it all be better if we used the rule of law per the Constitution where the rights of individual citizens is of the highest regard? Truth and Justice Posted November 12, 2009 10:53 PM
VIEW ALL 10 COMMENTS

TODAY'S MOST POPULAR