Anti-Terror Bill Easily Passes House

The House on Friday overwhelmingly approved a bill to give law enforcement agencies expanded powers to pursue suspected terrorists, turning aside the complaints of some Democrats about what they called a rush to curb civil liberties.

The House action, on a 337-79 vote, came less than 24 hours after the Senate approved a largely similar bill. With the differences between the two chambers on the legislation narrowed considerably, House Republican leaders said they hope the Senate will now agree to the House-passed version and speed the bill to President Bush’s desk.

But leading Senate Democrats said they expect the two versions to require a formal legislative conference to reconcile differences.

What the House and Senate have agreed upon represents the broadest anti-terror legislation in at least five years. Advocates say the times require it, but critics fear the loss of quintessentially American liberties.

The legislation has been the subject of intensive negotiations among Republican and Democratic lawmakers and administration officials after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. For weeks, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft has urged Congress to act quickly to help authorities prevent further mayhem. But the House and Senate have approached his requests cautiously.

This week, though, as U.S. military strikes in Afghanistan fueled fears of retaliation on American soil, both houses agreed on the need to give police greater power to detain immigrants and monitor the electronic communications and phone calls of suspected terrorist networks. Anxious lawmakers expressed hope that the legislation would help federal authorities corral shadowy foes at home and abroad.

The votes, said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, “show that Congress is serious about giving law enforcement the tools to track down terrorists before they attack us.”

Sensenbrenner, a key broker in the legislation, said he has received assurances from Ashcroft that the House-approved bill would be acceptable to Bush.

Bush, commending the House action, urged Congress “to quickly get the bill to my desk. We must strengthen the hand of law enforcement to help safeguard America and prevent future attacks.”

In a significant concession to the administration, the House agreed Friday to lengthen the duration of some of the proposed police powers. Now, under the House-approved bill, the new federal surveillance authority would expire after three years, or five years if the president seeks an extension. A previous House bill, written by senior Republicans and Democrats, had imposed a tighter “sunset” provision of two years. But the Bush administration called that timetable too tight for an unpredictable and potentially lengthy war on terrorism.

The Senate bill contains no sunset provision. It also calls for a crackdown on money laundering, which is absent from the House bill. Those are the major remaining differences between the two.

Only three House Republicans voted against the bill: Reps. Ray LaHood of Illinois, Ron Paul of Texas and C.L. “Butch” Otter of Idaho. Democrats were deeply divided: 75 opposed the bill, including 13 from California, while 129 supported it. One of the House’s two independents, Bernard Sanders of Vermont, also voted no.

Many lawmakers from both parties who were skeptical of some provisions felt heavy pressure to vote for the bill with the nation at war. For some lawmakers, one Democratic aide said, opposing any counter-terror bill would be tantamount to “political suicide.” The Democratic critics charged that the House Republican leadership, in moving to bridge differences with the Senate, had tossed aside a consensus bill approved unanimously on Oct. 3 by the House Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) complained that Friday’s action, in which no amendments were allowed, amounted to “the least democratic process for debating questions fundamental to democracy that I have ever seen.”

Another critic, Rep. Melvin Watt (D-N.C.), urged the House “not to cower to the terrorists and give away the constitutional rights that our founding fathers have given us. This bill, in my estimation, goes too far.”

But some Republicans who had been wary of proposals by the administration that they said could infringe on civil liberties, such as Reps. Bob Barr of Georgia and Dick Armey of Texas, supported the bill.

The House bill closely tracks many, but not all, of the provisions the Senate had approved late Thursday on a 96-1 vote. According to a summary released by the Republican leadership, the House bill would:

* Allow law enforcement agents to obtain a search warrant usable nationwide to seize certain electronic evidence, such as e-mails. Current rules require agents to obtain separate warrants from whichever local court has jurisdiction over the property to be searched.

* Allow a court to authorize agents to obtain certain phone records for all calls made by a particular suspect, easing current rules that require court permission every time a person switches from one cell phone to another.

* Allow the government to obtain one court order permitting eavesdropping on all phone calls made by a person being monitored in a foreign intelligence investigation. Currently, “roving wiretaps” are not possible in such probes. Agents are required to seek court permission to tap each telephone a suspect might use.

* Give agents greater power to seize voice mail messages as evidence and monitor Internet traffic in investigations.

* Allow the Immigration and Naturalization Service to detain a foreigner for up to seven days before authorities decide whether to press criminal charges or seek deportation. Currently, the detention limit is two days.

* Toughen criminal penalties for acts of terrorism. Federal judges would be allowed to sentence people convicted of certain crimes of terrorism to life in prison.

In addition, according to a Republican aide, the bill would also give certain federal agencies access to grand jury records, easing strict secrecy rules under some conditions.

Notably, the House bill omitted Senate-approved language intended to crack down on money laundering. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) repeated Friday his insistence on including a money-laundering provision. Daschle said Congress cannot ignore the need to choke off financial networks that support terrorists, but House Republicans said the matter should be addressed separately.

By stripping the money-laundering provisions from their bill, House leaders were hoping to avoid delays that might have resulted from the need to answer concerns of the banking industry. They pledged action on a separate bill next week.

“We’re hoping to get this [anti-terror bill] to the president as quickly as possible,” said Jeff Lungren, a spokesman for Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee.

Molly Rowley, a spokeswoman for Daschle, said the majority leader will seek a conference to resolve disputes as early as next week.

Among those who voted against the House bill Friday were 13 of the 32 House Democrats from California: Reps. Xavier Becerra of Los Angeles, Sam Farr of Carmel, Bob Filner of San Diego, Mike Honda of San Jose, George Miller of Martinez, Juanita Millender-McDonald of Carson, Barbara Lee of Oakland, Lucille Roybal-Allard of Los Angeles, Hilda L. Solis of El Monte, Pete Stark of Hayward, Maxine Waters of Los Angeles, Diane Watson of Los Angeles and Lynn C. Woolsey of Petaluma.

Reps. Jane Harman (D-Venice), Grace F. Napolitano (D-Norwalk) and Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands) did not vote.