Following a marathon markup session that ended after 8 p.m., the Judiciary Committee voted 36-0 to approve the Provide Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001.
In a related development, the chairman and ranking Republican of the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday afternoon said that they reached an agreement with the administration on their own version of an anti-terrorism package.
Acting despite objections from the civil liberties community, House Judiciary Committee members declined to scale back language in the bill that would allow federal law enforcers to apply for wiretap orders under foreign intelligence rules -- rather than more stringent criminal evidentiary standards -- even when seeking evidence in criminal cases.
The committee also left unchanged language that would allow law enforcers to obtain certain Internet records under so-called "trap-and-trace" orders.
"Terrorists have weapons that law enforcement cannot protect against right now," Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said at the outset of Wednesdays debate. "Technology has made extraordinary advances, but [it is] these advances in the wrong hands that make us more vulnerable to attacks."
When Attorney General John Ashcroft defended his proposed anti-terrorism package before the Judiciary Committee last week, many lawmakers from both parties -- including Judiciary Committee ranking Democrat John Conyers, D-Mich. -- voiced strong reservations with the legislation.
But on Monday, Conyers and Sensenbrenner unveiled the PATRIOT Act, which incorporates many of the requests contained in the Ashcroft proposal, but includes a "sunset" clause under which many of the more controversial surveillance provisions will come up for congressional review in two years.
But while civil liberties advocates applauded the committee for working through the legislative process and retooling some of the more contentious elements of the Ashcroft proposal, representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) said the legislation still erodes key constitutional freedoms.
"I dont think that the electronic surveillance stuff is adequately fixed," Laura Murphy, the director of the ACLUs Washington Office, told Newsbytes.
CDT Executive Director Jerry Berman said despite the attempts to retool the legislation, he was still concerned that the bill was being pushed through the process too quickly.
"People are being told that if they do not sign on with this bill, they will be blamed for the next terrorist attack," Berman said.
CDT attorney Jim Dempsey said despite the clamor over the legislation, the bill might not have its desired effect.
"The real shame is that there has been no evidence that the current legal standards [surrounding electronic surveillance] have contributed to terrorism or impeded effective counter-terrorism efforts," Dempsey said.
"One possible consequence of the way the statute broadens surveillance is that the government will be collecting more irrelevant information," Dempsey added, citing reports that the intelligence community is not able to sort through the surveillance data it currently collects.
But although civil liberties advocates oppose the House bill, they say they are exponentially more concerned about the language that is likely to come out of the Senate.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and ranking Republican Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said they would offer their anti-terrorism compromise bill to Senate leadership today.
Dempsey, who has been following the debate closely said he expects the Senate bill to be little changed from the Justice Department proposal.
Leahy and Hatch said their bill blends the need for civil security with the preservation of personal freedoms.
"These have been complex and difficult negotiations, but after much hard effort we have completed work on this bipartisan agreement," Leahy said in a statement.
Hatch said the compromise "takes into account each of our principled beliefs and is based on our views on the proper balance between the role of law enforcement and our civil liberties."
Leahy and Hatch would not disclose the new terms of the compromise.
David McGuire, Newsbytes
