Congress’ Patriot Act Kabuki dance

December 23, 2005

Just when it seemed the congressional wrangling over the Patriot Act couldn’t get any worse, lawmakers managed to find a way.

It seemed like everyone on the Hill had figured out how to save face and keep the law going. After a filibuster stopped the Patriot Act from being renewed, Senate Dems wanted a three-month extension to keep the law alive while lawmakers debate concerns over civil liberties. Senate Republicans were willing to accept a 12-month extension. Arlen Specter brokered a deal for a six-month extension; Bush flip-flopped and said it was a great idea; and there was much rejoicing. All the House had to do was go along with the Senate compromise and everyone could go home for the holidays.

That didn’t quite work out as planned.

In a frantic finish before adjourning for the year, Congress extended on Thursday the broad antiterrorism bill known as the USA Patriot Act by five weeks after the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee balked at a longer extension.

The deal, approved by voice vote in sparsely attended sessions in the House and Senate, averts the expiration of the 16 major provisions of the original law on Dec. 31. It was the final twist in a six-day game of brinksmanship between President Bush and Senate Democrats who, joined by a handful of Republicans, had blocked a bill to make permanent the original law.

But the deal fell far short of President Bush’s aim of permanently extending the original law, which expanded the government’s investigative powers after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The extension also set the stage for a clash over civil liberties and national security when lawmakers return here early next year.

At first blush, this seems counterintuitive. Senate Republicans and the Bush White House wanted a longer extension, keeping the law in place for at least six months. Why did House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) balk at the deal most Republicans wanted and move the extension closer to what Democrats asked for? There are a couple of possibilities.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Congress’ most assertive Patriot Act critic, thinks Republicans will use a shorter extension to get more of what they want when lawmakers reconvene.

With a shorter extension, the overly broad parts of the current Patriot Act, will be in effect for less time, and as many have pointed out here today, that would be a good thing. However, the House Republican leadership and the President should not make the mistake of thinking that a shorter extension will make it possible to jam the unacceptable conference report through the Congress. I will fight against that as hard in January as I did in November and December – And our bipartisan coalition has come too far, and survived too many attacks, not to hang together.

That sounds compelling, but I think the House had something else in mind — namely, the calendar. Michael Froomkin saw this the same way.

See, six months from expiration brings us to June, which uncomfortably close to the next congressional election. The GOP doesn’t want hard questions being asked about ‘why did you vote to spy on me, Congressman’. But the House dems don’t want attacks about ‘why did you vote against catching terrorists’ or the like. So both parties in the House have decided it’s in their self-interest to get this over with as fast as possible.

That sounds right to me. Indeed, Sensenbrenner hinted in this direction when he said, “[The Senate] came pretty close to wrecking everybody’s Christmas. I didn’t want to put the entire Congress in the position of them wrecking everybody’s Independence Day.”

The Senate debate was about how long to keep the law in tact — Republicans wanted the Patriot Act endure as is as long as possible, Dems want changes. The House, expecting a tough midterm election cycle, looked at the debate and saw no upside to doing all of this again a few months before voters head to the polls.

Just a quick question- Has anybody noted how this might run right into Hastert’s plan to reconvene the House at the end of January (to delay for Delay… ok, bad joke)? The house will be just coming online when the patriot act comes due again. Honest question here, I just noted the time clashing, and am seriously wondering about the potential impact.

  • Has anybody noted how this might run right into Hastert’s plan to reconvene the House at the end of January

    Good question, CT. At this point, I think Hastert’s plan may be “revised.” DeLay’s legal proceedings keep facing delays and every attempt from DeLay’s lawyers to expedite the process hasn’t worked.

    Hastert’s plan was predicated on the idea that DeLay would be acquited quickly. That seems less and less likely all the time. With this in mind, Hastert & Co. may have to fight the Patriot Act fight without DeLay’s help.

  • Won’t we all be distracted by the Alito confirmation hearings come January?
    It just seems to me that the Republican game plan is to get this through as quickly with as little deliberation as possible. It just doesn’t make sense to me that something as important as permanently affecting civil liberties in this country should be given long and careful deliberation – not rushed through in the middle of the night or cut short for artificial dealines like “Christmas break”. There just seems to be a fundamental dishonesty with the way GOPers run the government.

  • So does that make a third possibility? That Sensenbrenner is, in effect, working directly for Blunt, and his effort to become more than a placeholder for Delay? This would make sense, given the shortness of time (which I found to be really suspicious). After all, if they had gone for two months (I understand that they wouldn’t do three, since that would be agreeing with the Dems), then there would be plenty of time to reconvene at the end of January, as currently planned.

    So, basically, if your analysis is correct, is it possible that this is an invisible ‘coup’ to push Delay to the sidelines, permanently?

  • Someone was quoted on NPR this morning, Sensenbrenner himself I think, and what he said made sense. If they extend it six months they will put it off until the last minute all over again, just like a college student. 5 weeks will (in theory) not allow Congress to forget about the upcoming expiration. It’s also good to point out they knew this first deadline was coming ever since they put together the first Patriot Act, they put the deadline in just so they would have had these debates on it and come to a more permanent resolution by now.

    I think the whole act needs to be scrapped, but that’s my opinion. And I doubt that’s going to happen.

  • Mueller- don’t get confused by talking points. They are supposed to sound logical. What you should look for, always, is the story-behind-the-story, i.e. the real reason for a particular action. A cute analogy about college students makes logical sense, but it doesn’t account for the myriad of other factors involved in a decision about this. If you don’t believe that, then just look at how many different extension plans were thrown out there in the final push. There is a solid reason, even if not visible, for every one of those.

  • Well, the quote was limited to saying that in six months we would be in this last-minute-debate mess again, and right before the Independence Day recess as well. The analogy I made up myself, because it was the experience I drew from that helped the point ring true.

    hat you should look for, always, is the story-behind-the-story, i.e. the real reason for a particular action.\

    True, but one should also apply Occam’s Razor – that the simplest answer is most likely the correct one.

    And, after paying close attention to the entire 2004 presidential election, I learned that there was a lot of vacuous bluster about “timing” with regards to everything that made no sense at all, ie releases of publications. “Yes! Let’s time the release Richard Clarke’s book to six months before the election! That will really put a damper on Bush’s election results in November.” Nevermind the fact that the book was delayed for quite some time by the government screeners who check for confidential information.

    I guess applying Occam’s Razor will lead to a lot of subjective results depending on who’s looking, and politicians are (duh!) inhererently political people, but then everyone deserves an initial assumption of straightforward honesty.

  • CT, I agree that one shouldn’t immediately take the word of a politician when they explain their actions. One must take the actions in context. However, one must also take care not to go down the rabbit hole. If you need a lot of epicycles to explain a phenomena you are likely on the wrong track.

    In the case of Sensenbrenner there is a simpler explanation; he is a very odd man. There is blog dedicated to his oddity Sensenbrenner Watch. It is unlikely that he is part of any grand scheme to help DeLay. Hereis Sensenbrenner in Sensenbrenner’s own words.

    “It is very hard to make a difference and actually change things if you have a reputation of ‘going along to get along’ for everything,” said the[Sensenbrenner] in a long interview about his event-filled chairmanship.

  • well, now, won’t that put the Patriot Act discussions right smack dab in the middle of the hearings about the administration spying on citizens?

  • I think the rationale for a 5-week (versus 6-month) extension is far simpler than what has been discussed. It’s not a bunch of Congressmen running for re-election; I bet this tactic came straight from the White House.

    The Administration is worried about yet more public revelations of secret domestic spying abuses. The longer the Congress waits to renew the PATRIOT Act, the more time the press has to uncover other surveillance programs against American citizens.

    No, the smart move for the Bush team is to cram down the PATRIOT Act reauthorization as quickly as possible — before any more bad news can scuttle it.

    • Comments are closed.