Stalled action on a wiretapping bill has put Senate Democrats in the awkward position of calling for a long-term extension of a Republican-backed interim spying law that has become a source of anger on the left.

“The Democrats tell me how bad the Protect America Act is, so I am stunned that they would want to continue it,” said Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.), vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, referring to the interim law.

Meanwhile, the House passed on Tuesday a compromise 15-day extension of the Protect America Act so that both sides could continue to work toward passage of an overhaul of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Both Bond and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) indicated they could accept an extension of around two weeks.

Still, with major hurdles remaining, the idea of extending the interim law until the next administration seems to be picking up steam in Democratic circles.

“I think what we should do is extend the law for an extended period of time,” Reid said on the floor Tuesday. “We’ll extend it until there’s a new president.”

That statement masks the backlash Democrats received when the Protect America Act was enacted in August. At the time, Democrats bowed to the White House’s contention that failure to enact a new law before the August recess would drastically impact counterterrorism operations. Civil libertarians and liberal bloggers slammed Democrats for capitulating, saying they were allowing the Bush administration to trample on Americans’ constitutional right to privacy.

In response, congressional Democrats promised to pass before the expiration date a FISA overhaul that would restore the powers of the secret court that has oversight over foreign-intelligence surveillance in the U.S.

With that date looming, Democrats and Republicans remain at loggerheads over how to move forward. In the Senate, the parties have yet to resolve a procedural dispute on the consideration of amendments. The two parties are fighting over a bill, passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee last fall, that would institute more court oversight on the program.

But it would also give retroactive legal protections for telephone companies that allegedly participated in the NSA program — a provision many Democrats off the committee oppose.

The Bush administration says it will not accept a new bill without those protections, contending that companies were acting in the interests of national security when assisting the government. But many Democratic critics say immunity is not needed if phone companies and the Bush administration were acting legally. The House passed its FISA rewrite bill last fall and did not include any immunity provision.

On balance, a number of Democrats said they would rather extend the interim law for over a year than give retroactive immunity to the carriers. The idea of simply letting the interim law expire is not supported by even the strongest critics of the administration.

 “At this juncture, I will take any extension that doesn’t include retroactive immunity,” said Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who, along with other Democrats, is trying to strip the immunity provision from the bill. Other liberal Democrats, including Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Russ Feingold (Wis.), echoed similar sentiments as well.

“I certainly don’t consider it an endorsement [of the law],” Feingold said of backing a longer-term extension. “It’s not my first choice and it’s not what I’m fighting for.”

A longer-term extension is receiving a cool response from the GOP. Some Republicans are concerned that if a Democrat wins the White House and Democrats expand their majorities in Congress, they may lose the edge in the debate.

“What we want to do is get the job done now,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said.

J.T. Rushing contributed to this article.