Sponsor of the bill, Republican Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, who was the Judiciary chairman in 2011 when lawmakers wrote the Patriot Act, took an almost apologetic tone on the floor Thursday.

He said he wished the bill did more, he said he shared in the disappointment of privacy groups over lost provisions, and he said that “perfect is rarely possible in politics — and this bill is no exception.”

Sensenbrenner suggested that in order to preserve core operations of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, the White House demanded a broadening of certain authorities and a lessening of certain restrictions.

According to sources familiar with the negotiations, the White House insisted that the bill that passed out of the Judiciary Committee 32-0 on May 7 was a non-starter. When Sensenbrenner and Judiciary Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va., sat down with the White House this month, General Counsel of the Director of National Intelligence Robert Litt made it clear to the House negotiators that a true and complete end to phone metadata collection was not going to happen.

Furthermore, to win back some of the defense hawks who were not yet on board with the bill, an extension of a controversial portion of the Patriot Act, Section 215, was added.

That only angered conservative lawmakers more. Paul Broun, R-Ga., said he was “adamantly” opposed to the two-year extension of Section 215. “This section of the Patriot Act widely expands the FBI’s ability to spy on Americans without probable cause, violating our Fourth Amendment rights,” he said.

Still, even as Sensenbrenner acknowledged that “some of the changes raised justifiable concerns,” he said, “this bill does deserve support.”

“Don’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good,” he declared in what would become a common refrain.

The new regulations were approved by the chairman and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Republican Mike Rogers of Michigan Maryland Democrat C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, respectively.

“At the end of this,” Rogers said on the floor Thursday, “I hope that people take away from this debate that those who believe that the first round of negotiations meant that our national security was in peril and those who believe the first rounds of negotiation that our civil liberties and privacy were in peril found that right balance today.”

During a press conference following passage, lead sponsors and architects of the legislation acknowledged that sacrifices had to be made in order to garner bipartisan support, especially as they see bright prospects for eventual passage in the Senate and, then, the signature of the president, who endorsed the bill earlier this week.

“I wish the bill went farther,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y. “It went farther when it was originally introduced. I hope the Senate will take it a little farther.”

Nadler added, however, that this was the first time since 1978 that the House advanced a bill to rein in government surveillance, and he disputed the argument that it was appropriate to vote against the bill because it lacked as broad a reach as its earlier incarnation.

Goodlatte had similar, if not familiar, argument.

“Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good,” he said.

Rep. John Conyers Jr., the ranking member on Judiciary, pointed out that the resounding bipartisan victory for the USA Freedom Act might have even been larger had there not been a wave of vote-changing at the last minute.

“Many switched their votes from ‘yes’ to ‘no,’ and we think we would have gotten an even larger show of support had they not realized, as most of us did, that it was going to pass overwhelmingly, and so they decided to vote ‘no,’” Conyers said.

Emma Dumain and Daniel Newhauser contributed to this report.

Related:

House Members Push for Open Debate on NSA

Sensenbrenner: Intelligence Director Committed Perjury