WASHINGTON, D.C. – Civil liberties groups hoping to influence policy makers voting on a possible extension and renewal of the USA Patriot Act saw their dreams of success crumble when 16 hastily enacted provisions to the 2001 law, due to expire at the end of the year, were given continued life on Thursday.The House of Representatives served up a 257–171 score, mostly along partisan lines, making the massive governmental powers effectively permanent as part of its plan to investigate individuals suspected of terrorist activities or other wrongdoing. President Bush had repeatedly urged lawmakers to make the entire law an enduring part of federal legislation and praised them for doing so.

“The Patriot Act is a key part of our efforts to combat terrorism and protect the American people,” Bush had insisted.

Republicans agreed, with Senator James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) stating that “Passage of the… act is vital to maintaining the post-9/11 law enforcement and intelligence reforms that have reduced America’s vulnerability to terrorist attack.” During the 1—hour debate, Sensenbrenner’s party repeatedly pointed to recent explosions in London as an example of why renewing the law was essential.

Adjustments were made to the act, including a number of chances that will increase judicial and political oversight of a few of the more controversial elements – a move supported by 44 Democrats and opposed by 14 Republicans in the chamber. A provision to apply the death penalty as punishment for terrorist offenses that result in death, and another labeling the use of drug profits to aid terrorist efforts as “narco-terrorism” and a crime, were both introduced by Republicans. Currently, offenders can serve 20-year minimum prison sentences. A number of amendments designed to add civil liberties safeguards, including one requiring that the FBI director personally approve all requests for library and bookstore records, were also added.

As originally written, the USA Patriot Act expanded allowable surveillance of people suspected of terrorist activities and included the right of the government to seize personal records from libraries, bookstores, businesses, hospitals, and other organizations in secret court. This “library clause,” along with extensions on government eavesdropping rights, have been highly controversial, a thing that Republicans acknowledged while renewing the clauses for 10 years instead of all eternity. The Senate judiciary committee’s version of the act, scheduled for this fall, includes an even shorter renewal time of four years.

Nonetheless, Democrats, many of whom supported the law when it was introduced in 2001, were not reassured. According to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, he vote was a decision about “… whether the government will be accountable to the people, to the Congress and to the courts for the exercise of its power.” In a back-and-forth philosophical exchange, Republicans countered by pointing out that no documented cases of civil liberty abuses exist, to which Democrats responded by pointing to more than 200 governmental requests for library records and a claim that the Republican leadership had rammed passage of the law through the House and refused to allow debate on several important amendments.

Senator Steny Hoyer (D-MD) summed up the situation by stating, “This is an abuse of power by the Republican majority, which has deliberately and purposely chosen to stifle a full debate.”