WASHINGTON — Illustrating a reservoir of concern even among Republicans, the House defied the Bush administration Wednesday by voting to roll back a controversial provision of the USA Patriot Act that, at least in theory, enabled terrorism investigators to check out the reading habits of patrons of libraries and bookstores.
The amendment, approved 238 to 137, would scale back a sweeping provision in the anti-terrorism law, Section 215, that allowed investigators to obtain a wide range of business records and other "tangible things."
Although the provision does not specifically mention books, it has come to be known as "the library provision" because of librarians' and civil liberties advocates' concern that investigators could use it to pry into the records of readers across the country, infringing on basic freedoms.
"Every member of Congress and every American understands we have to do everything we can to protect the American people from terrorism. That is not the debate," said Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), the amendment's lead proponent. "The debate is whether we can and must do that and protect the constitutional rights that make us a free people. That is what Congress voted for today.
"This sends a real message to the president that the American people do not want Big Brother looking over their shoulder when they walk into a library or bookstore."
Congress passed the Patriot Act weeks after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, expanding law enforcement powers to help thwart suspected terrorists. But its authors mandated that some of the more controversial provisions expire after four years unless specifically renewed.
The renewal of the Patriot Act is one of the administration's priorities this year. President Bush has put his personal prestige behind the effort, last week campaigning in Ohio in favor of the law in an appearance with Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales.
Wednesday's vote in the House suggests that the effort to renew the law, though not necessarily in serious jeopardy, may face tougher sledding than once thought.
Because of the urgency accompanying the act's 2001 passage, some members of Congress contend the administration sought to force some measures into the law without a considered debate. They regard this as their first chance to fully vet the law, and they do not always like what they see.
